20061376 Ver 1_More Info Received_20060911

MULKEY
,
PO Box 331 27
RALEIGH, NC 27636
PHONE: [phone]
FAx: [phone] Ex.p w o- 3 1to
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To: Lia Myott Date: September 8, 2006
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
From: Harold Brady ? ? e COPY **HAND DELIVERY""
858-1804 L
Re: Novartis 404/401 application
Job No.: 2006274.00
I am sending you the following item(s):
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 9/8/2006 Novartis 401/404 permit application.

These are transmitted as checked below:
® As requested
? For approval
? For review and comment
® For your use
? For Signatures
mm r
S E f 1 1 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STQRMATER BRANCH
Remarks:
Lia,
Enclosed are seven copies of the 401 permit application, a copy of the stream and wetland JD plat map,
and a copy of the stormwater plan. Also attached is a check for $3,000 to NC Division of Water Quality
for the Express Permitting process.
If you have any questions, comments, or notice anything item needed that is missing please contact
Harold Brady at 858-1804.
Thank you, D
Harold BradyLk, DE nNGH
?JrN?8ANQRTf?Rrer..,:.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
MULKEY
rSFP DI - .
S Zuub
b
?.xp DL.- 1376
UENR - VVAI Ek WALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
ATTENTION: Mr. Monty Matthews FILE COPY
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Representative ?' 'Du ?l z=
DATE: August 29, 2006 SEP 1 1 LUUb
WAIER
SUBJECT: Proposed Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Facility Holly S r pENR _ TO U,1.? ;Ty
STO
Y Y P ANAg RM4yATEk HRANCH
Wake County, North Carolina ANp
Please find attached the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
for the referenced project. Novartis has proposed to construct a new pharmaceutical
facility with associated access roads and parking areas. This work will result in 290
linear feet of unavoidable impacts to one jurisdictional stream channel (an unnamed
tributary of Utley Creek) and an area of isolated wetlands. The purpose of the project is
to facilitate industrial development in Holly Springs, North Carolina. The anticipated let
date for this proposed project is September 2006.
Arrangement of the proposed facility with all the buildings and parking areas was
studied and several versions were produced. However, the production line requires a
specific set-up of building locations with parking arranged around the building instead of
all located at one end. Auer the building arrangement had been decided upon, the
location of Phase 1 needed to be planned such that there was plenty of land on the
property left for Phases 2 and 3 if needed; while keeping in mind the avoidance and
minimization of stream and wetland impacts. In an attempt to avoid wetland and stream
impacts on the southern portion of the subject property the final design of Phase 1 was
located as far north as possible. The limiting element on the north side of the property is
severe slope associated with another perennial stream which had to be avoided for
construction purposes. Though we were not able to completely avoid impacts to
wetlands and streams with the Phase 1 layout, these impacts have been minimized to the
greatest extent practicable and still meet the needs of the project.
Portions of the existing stream depicted in Figures 2, 2A, and C-JSK-6 as Stream
SD and the isolated wetland WD are proposed to be filled. There is no outfall pipe
proposed, instead the waters that would enter the stream will be diverted along the toe of
the proposed fill slope crossing an access road and emptying back into the original stream
downstream of the proposed reinforced earthen retaining wall.
In order to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project it was not feasible
to entirely avoid wetland or stream impacts. A bridging alternative was studied;
however, due to the severe valley slope the bridge would need to be approximately 80
feet long and take up considerable land area needed for the parking and access roads
which would result in increased stream impacts in another location within the subject
property. This would not leave enough land area to build the potential Phase 2 and 3
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NO 2751 1 PCJ BOX 33127 RALEIGH. NCB 27636 PH: 919-651-1912 FAX: [phone] WWW.MULKEYINC.CCIM
portions. Another alternative suggested was the use of a concrete retaining wall;
however, according to Jacobs Engineering, the wall would have created approximately
the same amount of impacts as the reinforced earthen slope due to the nearly 27 feet of
fill required to bring the site to grade.
The design presented in this permit application was proposed by Jacobs
Engineering and Novartis during meetings attended by agents from the USACE and the
NCDWQ conducted the week of July 14 at the Town of Holly Springs municipal
building. Stream mitigation will be required by these regulatory agencies for this
proposed project at varying ratios. Impacted perennial streams require compensatory
mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for the USACE, while NCDWQ requires compensatory
mitigation for perennial streams at a l :1 ratio. Streams determined by the USACE to be
intermittent-important require a compensatory mitigation ratio of 1:1. NCDWQ does not
require compensatory mitigation for intermittent streams. For this project there are 109
linear feet of perennial stream proposed to be impacted and 181 linear feet of
intermittent-important stream proposed to be impacted. These individual regulatory
agencies do not require separate mitigation; therefore, once the compensatory mitigation
is sufficient for the USACE (which requires higher mitigation costs) then NCDWQ
requirements generally have been met as well. Therefore, the stream compensatory
mitigation will be for 399 linear feet of stream. In addition, 226 linear feet of
intermittent-isolated stream channel and 0.39 acres of isolated wetlands will be impacted
by the proposed project. These waters are solely under the jurisdiction of NCDWQ and
are below thresholds requiring compensatory mitigation.
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has agreed to
provide Novartis up to 580 linear feet of stream mitigation upon approval of
environmental permits and submittal of fee. In summary, 399 linear feet of stream
channel will be directly mitigated for by EEP. Attached is a copy of the letter from the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) granting Novartis the
opportunity to pay into their in-lieu fee mitigation program for anticipated stream impacts
as a result of this proposed project.
The project is located within the Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-07. There are
seven jurisdictional streams within the 167.0 acre subject property; however, there is only
one jurisdictional stream (UT to Utley Creek) within the 51.0 acre Phase 1 area. The UT
to Utley Creek is not depicted on the USGS Apex, NC topographic quadrangle map, but
has been confirmed to be jurisdictional by the USACE and the NCDWQ because the
stream displays signs of subsurface input and an uninterrupted bed and bank among other
attributes. The concurrence field meetings were conducted on June 16, 2006 with Mr.
Monty Matthews (USACE) and with Mr. Ian McMillan (NCDWQ) on June 9 and 30,
2006. Utley Creek flows into White Oak Creek approximately 3.0 miles southwest of the
project area. NCDWQ has assigned a best usage classification of "C" to Utley Creek and
a stream index number is 18-7-(5.5). The USGS hydrologic unit is 03030004. There are
no high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), drinking water
supply waters (WS-I and WS-11), or 303(d) listed streams within a one-mile radius of the
project study area. An area of isolated wetlands is located above the jurisdictional
stream, and is proposed to be impacted by the proposed project.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified three
Endangered (E) species (red-cockaded woodpecker, Michaux's sumac and dwarf wedge
mussel) and one Threatened (T) species (bald eagle) for which occurrences have been
recorded in Wake County. The land that will be impacted as a result of this project
consists of pine-hardwood forest, with an existing maintained sewer line easement, and a
significant network of dirt access roads. No suitable habitat is available within the
project area for any of the protected species, except Michaux's sumac.
• Bald eagles are year-round, transient species in North Carolina. Suitable habitat
for the bald eagle consisting of large areas of open water is not present within the
subject property. An area of open water, Thomas Mill Pond, is located several
hundred feet south of the southern property boundary; however, no nests were
observed near the pond. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
maps were reviewed on June 14, 2006 to determine if any bald eagle populations
have been identified at or near the project study area. This map review confin-ned
that no bald eagle nests or individuals have been reported within a one-mile radius
of the project site. Proposed project construction will not impact this species.
• Suitable habitat for RCW does not exist within the project area since there are no
pine dominated stands of appropriate diameter or age present. The pines that are
present are young (less than 30 years old) and are within thick stands of
hardwoods. NCNHP maps were reviewed on June 14, 2006 to determine if any
RCW populations have been identified at or near the project study area. This map
review confirmed that no known RCWs are located within a one-mile radius of
the project site. Proposed project construction will not impact this species.
• Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac consisting of sandy or rocky open woods or
open areas of periodic disturbance is present in the project study area. The project
study area is dominated by clayey textured, thickly vegetated areas. However,
there are several locations throughout the subject property that contain more
rocky soils that contain significantly less vegetation. These areas tend to be along
the existing dirt roads, sewer line easements, as well as areas that were formerly
used for logging decks. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac was
conducted by Mr. Tom Barrett and Mr. Scott Hunt, PE within the project study
area on May 2, 2006 for approximately 8 man-hours. No Michaux sumac
individuals were observed during this survey. In addition, North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) maps were reviewed on June 14, 2006 to determine
if any protected species have been identified at or near the project study area.
This map review confirmed that no populations of Michaux's sumac are known to
occur within a one-mile radius of the project site. Proposed project construction
will not impact this species.
• Suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel consisting of nearly silt-free streams,
with slow to moderate currents within the Neuse or Pamlico river basins is not
present within the project study area. Several freshwater mussels were observed
in the perennial stream in the northern portion of the subject property (Stream
"SA"); however, due to the subject property's location within the Cape Pear River
basin no dwarf wedgemussel are anticipated to be present. NCNHP maps were
reviewed on June 14, 2006 and this map review confirmed that no populations of
dwarf wedgemussel are known to occur within a two-mile radius of the project
study area. Proposed project construction will not impact this species.
Following your review and concurrence with the proposed action, please issue a
NWP 39 that will authorize construction activities associated with the filling of
jurisdictional stream channel and isolated wetland and stream areas within the proposed
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics facility. If you have any questions or comments
concerning the project, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Harold M. Brady
Staff Scientist
Attachments
PCN
Figure 1 Project Vicinity
Figure 2 Streams and Wetlands (w/ aerial overlay)
Figure 2A Streams and Wetlands (w/o aerial overlay)
Figure 3 Soils Map
Figure 4 Wake County Soil Survey Map
NCDWQ Express Review Acceptance
EEP Acceptance
Permit Drawings (C-JSK-4, C-JSK-6, C-JSK-8)
Alternative Analysis Drawings
Jurisdictional waters plat map
Stream and wetland forms
Protected Species Technical Report
cc: (7 copies w/ application fee and stormwater plan)
Ms. Lia Myott, NCDWQ-Wetlands Unit, Express Review Project Manager
(single copies)
Ms. Heather Keefer, Town of Holly Springs, Environmental Specialist
Mr. Amer Takieddine, Jacobs, Inc., Project Manager
Ms. Deana Dearborn, Novartis, Project Manager
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERAIINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: P1 1(7t'il Ae -A ya r k Date: r Z 06
Applicant/Owner. U I t 4 in (? UnIL4 p r County:
Investigator(s): C3, .3 State: Notch Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: M'" 1 r•n d' r 1
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes HN Transect ID: WA
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot tD: JA 2-
(If needed, ex lain ort reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plnnt S_pLeies Stratum Indica o ?ommant Plant Snccies Str
um icf_tt9C
1. ?Ut'cu5 e,V5V5 j'•/S?'. at
Ly,VJ 9.
3. ?h+C'.1 ev4; FAC
10.
3. IL
4. CO, 'l _{> 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Perc ent of Dominant Species that are OHL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photoginphs
/ Other
`No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
I/ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
ediment Deposits
_
field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N (in.) ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in J Local Soil Survey Data

D
h _FAC-Neutrul Test
ept
to Saturated Soil: (inJ _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
S(111,5
Map Unit Name 1? ,
(Series and Phase) ? V } J
o r ?" + ^" _'> r' ( Gwt
Drainage Class: ©p
`` Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) U U I Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Desc tR ion:
Depth'
Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Munsel Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
10YP.
I h/

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol T Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regi me -Listed on Local Hydric Soils Last
_
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National llydric Soils List
V Gleyed or Low-Chrom a Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WTiTT.ANn flF.TF.PWNATION

Ilydrophylic Vegetation Prescn(? ?Yes1 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es ) No
Y
es r?
Hydric Soils Present? i Ye No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? ` Yes No
Remarks:
A...... -A ., 4r111 •A i 4/02
DATA F ORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: _pr0'l ex;+ n a,rA Vl'i r k Date: rr Z o
Applicant/Owner: U `' County:

Investigator(s): 7, (.r "d j t
'p7 .4
' lX
6
State:
North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? FYI- No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: ?•
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: eQ.l V'/ t' t l
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Spce.ie. Stratum Indicato Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
j F)9 9.
2. (%VJ (A r n r j' ? Ill.
?% F_"'? CV if.

s. SO,t?b'
r A n o r{rn
r tl
5
P4C IA/
13.

6.
Loo-r, 4? FA
14.
L-1 t V:r!f'? f; c1 ?'
'?
7. '
?rC'. t ri h1 tyice 15.

8 /
j1CPr YV?iY,?1
T?<c. ?f n
'f??
16
.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 6-0
Remarks:
1+

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
rDrift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
-
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 1'' A (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: t?A_(in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ?_(in.) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: V i d V S .!"''1 J Y; ,
CnTT..c

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) 4, G ?r JAJ
Drainage Class: ? `'

t Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) T\1 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
/aYa- 3 _ ?at?, ?Utlars?
---r
S !2 ? lOYR 5 L ?vrtytq
r?.,; a{
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol -Concretions
_
_IIistic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Atluic Moisture Regime _Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
_Reducing Conditions
C
l
d
Ch Listed on National Hydric Soils List
7Other (Explain in Remarks)
o
ors
roma
or Low-
_Gleye
Remarks: A ?toa`o,n - c y c r ut E c C, p rt rv
t10e: "w' 1;s ve 1t rrar'r
WVTT Amny iTF'UXUWA'T'TON
llydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ?N Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
A..-- vIt 1. nr
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ? r; Ac-o-c:'-'yai- Ic- Date: r 2. O6
Applicant/Owner. of (7 611\1 Dr),00,-S County: e
Investigator(s): r r State: Notch Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community Ill: w t a , r
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Ft4-1 Transect ID:
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominnnt Plant Species Stratum IIndiicator Dominant Plant Snecies Stratum Indicator'

Y J Y Jr^
,
A
?)... t .. ?
A c
i`
.
G(
L
r 9.
' C
- r 11 C
,
r . 10.
3. i ?' . rL t 1 l .
4. C
' .? 12.
f4 v 1 13.

6. i.._ 14.
7. 15.
B. 16.
Percent of Donunant Species that are OBL, F'ACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Ike, or tide (rouge
Aerial Photographs
/ Othcr
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology hidicators:
Primary Indicators:
V" Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Dri ft Li nes
_
Sedinient Deposits
Field Observations: V Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
r Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water:
(in.)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

0 _Water-Staincd Icaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
Rcmw ks:
SOTTIS
Map Unit Name ff
(Series and Phase) V Od r n .R? >?".+ f
{ 0 A vv\ -- !
Drainage Class: 1 O? ? ? ?!
'? Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) ` ?({? 4 G'^L 1. } -5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
t V
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
ell Moist)
s
inches Horizon {Mun (Munsell Mnist) Structure, etc.
Abundance/Contrast
?
/ t
cOW sti-;S .t tb't-t! i! . µ» S; 14-" C lc,,,(
t? ?/ t?.
2. " l'l ?j U i? 10 t h I l t b -3 tl i 3 11 1 0 to M
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol -Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon -high Organic Content in Surface Laver in Sandy Soils
_
SulFdic Odor ^Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_Ayuic Moisture Regime _Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils lAst
?Gle),ed or low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WFTY.ANTI n1 .TFRMTNATf0N
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Ycs No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wctland? f Yes No
Remarks:
n. .... a t.tnt MAr>~ VQ9
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjccVSite:
Applicant/Owner: U
Investigator(s):
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Date: L? 6
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes IN.
County: ke
Statc: North Carolina
Community ID:
Transect ID: W tG
Plot ID: 1,.1? e r t"y (3
I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species S atu Indicator PutTlinanl Plant Species Stratum Indicato
! {
t ut)f'rC.?l5 U 4i?+0. vj Y"{'r' ?-^
C V
PAC 9.
2. ?GY~ y ?1 ',)y I, CC FAc
3. Via .s rU ?::. ?. >,'. ?,?"..:,? FAQ 11.
r A A C, 12.
5. O
r { .g t C :-k4' - r 71 A6, 13.

6. l
i 1 I O ti.f r.rOA
u l ', a }t! r ra
i p'? t'. J?
I ? C'
14.
7• 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are ORI, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). Z.5
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_Saturated up Upper 12 Inches
_ Walrs Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
^
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
/ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (jr,.)
?- Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
( Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Walcr in Pit: +? (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neotml Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:"
. 'V:
W)1T .S
h f (( l ,
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase)
Drainage Class: S? l
(? (
? Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) ` 1 ek G?
u C1 O ' Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description;
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munaell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Structure, etc.
Abundance/Contrast
i? A tV Y? r /
G-f?GZr
1 Y 1.3- Clay Loam
'3-7 r3 0'2 5 1 +1q- Ci d a tl/ ?D rv?
7 ? ? -
- 5Y 61q %Oct,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^-Sulfidic Odor _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Ilydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Geyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
'1UV'VT A( nn1I7'PIWVX!TNATIC)N
Ilydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
o
Wetland Ilydrology Present? Yes N
Ilydtic Soils Present? Yes "NO) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
A.,.,,.,,,• - 11SACR3192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
11roject/Site: Bf a t e, 4 A i r J `?a f t? _
Applicant/O,micr: bg,.J, ! ! c I t a ` fJ r ,
Tnvesligator(s): -?! .r • ti r,>,' r i` r ,, l
Do Nurnral Circumstances exist on the site? yes j No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ( No)
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes N,
(If needed, explain on reverse)

Date: l
r ?_
? J Ica uG
County: ?)a f?
State: ! L'
rt
Community 1D: `
1,
ri C {
Transect ID: U,1 D
Plot ID: 1N 1, 5; lei
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant_tiltecies Stratum It]Slicator Dominant _l?]ant cic Stratum Indictno
1. C?,'M a r?rn fC ?r (; 4 j tf 't C?1? s 9.
a
10.
r
!
?W ?b
i U" Y f? I1
3. .
y
t
a .
4. ltCrr rv1,+?ir T.c. PF+G 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 1 i.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- ). fj
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
V Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Mnrks
Drift Lines
,Sediment Deposits
_
Field Observations: ,
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 1? (inJ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stniued Lcmes
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _
Local Soil Survey Data
?,r?AC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

QnYY C
Mnp Unit Nnme

(Series and Phase) 1? ar e C?" ??? oe r""
t
-f
Drainage Class: ?n .,L--

Vt
r Field Obsen ations /
`I
Imo- f, - r
'T'axonomy (Subgroup) Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile DescriIn ion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Hot. ?izOn LUM11 Moist) (Mt uell Mo"st Abundancc/Contrast Structure, etc.
t1i t? Y r? G .?i
-?-_ .?y G?ee? ?A4t,w?
I }
f?^ ,?, .n ? J L f !?' y fl, yy^?1
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Strenking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local IIydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
[x/TTT A W" n1W VV A4TWATYn V

Hydroph)Kic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? 'es No

Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No I
is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes' No
Remarks:
4-mvpd by I-1. /9
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAIN'D DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
h
Project/Site: ?ro, c .0, r ?- tl M (e.-
-T
I ' k1 n .? Y%n
Applicant/Owner.
Yi.af.
Investigator(s): _j • ?> ? Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yesr No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (No
Is this area a potential Problem Areu? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)

Dnte: i
(x f z.?? y
County: ?1w.,? -
State:
Community lD:
Transect ID: ',14
Plot ID: VJ S
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species r n dicator
n
I Dominupt Plat 5pe is a t Indicato

1.
l f V Y\V S jtl(w`?irr? --r^
\ ??G /n
?
ETC
lJ 9.

2. 1
a?Vtrcu.s a? E ,1 .'
{c,C nn
h1
10.
3. '" tl' (ri 11.
4. L,?v (L?7 _ ;?i;•si??!,n' I {GFi f1Ii 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7, 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACRJ, or FAC (excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data.Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Ltdicators:
-Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainnge Patterns in Wetlands

/ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: L (in.)
4 Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Staincd Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: f? (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
_ PAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
00
VJ -D
cnTr c
Map Unit Name 14
(Series and Phase) ' 1 ork"G' ` «x, c7c? s.,
Drainage Class: Wu
jj ++
(t Field Observations
.Q' V Q v 1
Taxonomy (Subgroup) I, Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Dascri)tim
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Tcout, Concretions,
t hest Horizon m sell_Moim (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
p? ? ? ?o r? !? ? .?>?,??.•t Imo,,.
/0 -c/o lp-fA

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histnsol -Concretions
_
Ilistic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surrace Layer in Sandy Soils
J
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Iiydric Soils List
+
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
XXIV'rr Arras 'nrTFIDUTWATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes CNof 1
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ldo
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is [his Swnpling Point 1NiUtin a ?Irctlatrd? Yes No
Remarks:
Annrnve 9v 3192
i USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEE'T'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: z
1. Applicant's name: -Toiir1 yn +?1*Jf ?y Jr??"%r'•'S 2. Evaluator's name: ?___IJGt vr?~? i=
3.Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: /? y t Fe-
7. Approximate drainage area: r l
F
9. Length of reach evaluated: " - E- -'
6. River basin
8. Stream order: Z r, r Pl Y ?'t4r` t
10. County: WC*.. U:0-
11. Site coordinates (if ]mown): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): v? J (? ID D Longitude (ex. -77.556611): =? `t o
Method location determined (circle): GPS 1 po Sheet) ho Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation nn a nearb i TO'landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N o r`? i?
0
Y 7 ? ? =! t
15. Recent weather conditions: 5 V t'J 1,J
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Su N) IJ ?
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of tile evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?Y ) NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
% Forested
---Nutrient Sensitive _--Waters Water Supply Watershed J-IV
on point? YES (NO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
% Commercial % Industrial -% Agricultural
ro Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
-22.-Bank full width: 23-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank):---
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) Y Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bonds \/Frequent meander -----Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more Mndnuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between O and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6 C1 _ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ?
Ir 4,
_ _ Date K°?1TCa •
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners anrd enviro mental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a prelinunary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 -
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 U-4 0-5
O; contiguous, wide buffer= max points)
no buffer =
4 _
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) J
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
d no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 I
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
- 7 Entrenchment/ floodplain access 0-5 0-4----• ----0-2-
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)...
_...__--Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 -0-4----- _- 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition = 0' little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
, (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
y
Ea 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 ,
a severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max Joints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
(no visible roots= 0; dense roots throughout= max oints ,"'
i.-
- 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
q
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = tnax points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 ?,.
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
O; loose structure = max
(deeply embedded
=
20 .
.
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __0.5_ 0-5
;
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
>+
. ? -
-
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
-
?
p = 0• common numerous types = max points)
(no evidence
-? 22 .
Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
0 no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oinL4
22 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assesseo in coastal screams.
US ACE AID#
DWQ# _
Site #
(indicate on attached rnap)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ??
1 S {°?
1. Applicant's name: ?U'?Jr, 9-; 2. Evaluator's name: Barre
3.Datc of evaluation: r// A & _ 4. Time of evaluation:
P[? ;z
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area: `7 ro L
9. Length of reach evaluated: / -C2 0 ?-
6. River basin: r^tt l' t S r
8. Stream order.??' C ?l •? { C?
10. County;
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrces. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
y a ?' -
(ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.5.56611): P • ? " '
Latitude t p
Method location determined (circle): Pnoe TopoSheet ' Aedal) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation ear?b? d§10 landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N n t'd t
? }•_
15. Recent weather conditions: V, zr
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Su N1 IJ Y
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES "NO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?rY] S NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? tY? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -LL % Residential ra % Commercial L % Industrial Agricultural
6 O % Forested % Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
-22-Bank full width: ?/3.-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank-):--
24. Chaimel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) V ? Geentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) ---Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends /Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, term, in, 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 dbntinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
(D
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date J 0 (;
This channel evaluation form is intend o be used ottly as a guide to assist landowners and envi onr enlal professionals in
gathering the data required by the United Stales Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To COrrrrnent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREG ION POINT RANGY SCORE
# tain
M
_ Coastal Piedmont oun
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
6
0
0-5
0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration - 5
(extensive alteration = 0' no alteration = max points 6
0 0-4 U 5
3 Riparian zone -
(no buffer = 0' contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
0
trient or chemical discharges
f
id
E 0-5 0-4 - 41
4 nu
ence o
v
extensive discharges = 0' no dischar es = max points) 0 3 0-4 0-4
5 Groundwater discharge
a
U no discharge = 0- s rips sees wetlands, etc. = max points)
i
l
i
d
l
-fl 0-4 0-4 0-2
/

a
n
a
n
p
oo
nt
Presence of ad ace
max points)
=
no flood lain = 0' extensive flood lain 0-5 0-4 - --- ----0-2-. -
_ Entrenchment / floodplain access
-(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0 6
0-4 0 2
- adjacent wetlands - (?
no wetlands = 0. large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
5
0-4
0-3
q Channel sinuosity -
extensive cbannelization = 0' natural meander = max points)
4
0
0-4
10 Sediment input 0-5 -
(extensive deposition = 0' little or no sediment = max points)
5
0
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 -
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points) _
5
0
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 -
dee )1 incised = 0- stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0-5
0-5
13 Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
4
0-5
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-
H
no vle roots = 0' dense roots throughout = max points)

4
0

0-5
- 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 -
(substantial impact =0' no evidence = max points)
5
0
0-6
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 - ,k.
no riffleslri les or pools = 0' well-developed = ..max points) 0 6 0 6 0-6
17 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0' fre uen varied habitats = max points)_
0-5
0-5
0-5
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading ve etation = 0' continuous canopy = max oints N/A* 0 4 0-4
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0' loose structure = max
0-5
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 4
no evidence = 0' common, numerous types = max points)
4
0
0-4
-
0 21 Presence of amphibians -' - rn
p no evidence = 0' common numerous types = max oints 0 4 0 4 0 4
•a 22 Presence of fish 3
no evidence = 0; common numerous t yes = max oints
046
0-5
0-5
23 Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 100 100 100
Tot al Poi nts Possible
60
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first age
*These characteristics are not assesses in coasiai sucatub.
USAGE 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: r7+? ?+ C, -? +7irjt??!'7hr.5 2. Evaluator's name:
J'`^L
J
3.Date of evaluation: t5 h7 4% 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: (1 - //J
7. Approximate drainage area
G ©, ! r,,.:
9. Length of reach evaluated: - _ { 7O Z- F
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
6, River basin: e" F"7r.4.A,
8• Stream order: lea-5 4- .2
10. County: loo-kc,
12. Subdivision name (if any):
?
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): J • 6 ° r' 9 e14 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 7? 3l? t
Method location determined (circle): GP Topo Shee~ rOrtho (Aerial) PhotolGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roa s and landmnr)si?nd Attach map identifying stream(s) location);
11 14. Proposed channel work (if any): 110/,/ 1:
15, Recent weather conditions: <1 V IJ f"i Y,
16. Site conditions at time of visit: i t, +v IJ
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (1-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO if yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES r)Jn 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial ? % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested /,0 % Cleared / Logged _ % Other (_ )
-._..22..Banldull width: -23.-Bank- height (from bed to wp of-bank): -- 2-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: V/ Flat (0 to 2%) _ Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%r) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a Stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more-Mritinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
53
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature r Date ; (0
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and em ronn ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIlV T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 ??
no now or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past liuman alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges =0; no discharges= max points)
?.7
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Z
-? no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max oints
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 /
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
l 5
0 0-4 -- 0-2
?l 7 ain access
Entrenchment/ floodp - f
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points
. x ._.. $_.. .._ ..__._..... Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-2
acent wetlands= max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 7
extensive de osition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
S
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 Z
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5 0
5 0-5
13 Presence of major bank failures - -
•? severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points J_
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 Z
t
, no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points) _
.. 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

H 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0 5
O; continuous canopy = max oints
no shading ve etation = -?
x . N/A* 4
0 0-4
19 Substrate embeddedness -
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 -._ - 0-5_, 0-5 7
O; common numerous types = max points)
no evidence =
21 .
Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 /
p no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
a 22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4
0 no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)
Ct ?3 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
?o evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed to coastal streams.
USAGE AID#
DWQ# -
Site (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT AVORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: t..?.rf l
/ y
3.Date of evaluation: 5 I 1 16 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: C P e G. River basin: (, C
2
7. Approximate drainage area: III
9. Leneth of reach evaluated: P7

8. Stream order: 2 Y.J e) r
10. County: \,4n t; n,
11. Site coordinates (if }mown): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.572312): v Longitude (ex. -77.556611): ! q?
Method location determined (circle): CPS Topo Sheet .OrlhP Photo/G1S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation ' a near`b}TIS?ds aril landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): l\10 t'f i_
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at dme of visit:
N hJ
SvN14
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ;ENO} If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survcy? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 14 Flo Residential /0 % Commercial % Industrial _?7o Agricultural
?O % Forested % Cleared /Logged _ % Other ( )
--.e..22-Bankfull width: -' 23.-Bank.height4from bed to top of-bank): 2
--
24. Channel slope down center of stream: / ?° Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (> 109'0)
25. Channel sinuosity: _-Straight __._-Occasional bends _ Frequent meander _.__Very sinuous --Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream tinder review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may he divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
64
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date _-) l 10 h
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSKEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE
- Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
`7
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 .--
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 I
7
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max pints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0.4 0-4 Z
a no discharge=0; springs, sees wetlands etc.= max points)
6 Presence of adjacentlloodplain 0-4 04 0-2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
.. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04------
-2--
- - -
a, entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points
(deeply
__._.-_.-___-Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 A-4__ _ 0-2
acent wetlands = max oink
no wetlands= U; laz a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive de osition = 0• little or no sediment = max )pints --
I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
= max points)
fine homo enous = 0• large, diverse sizes
12 .,
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
dec 1 incised = 0- stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max points
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
Z'
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw bout = max points)
H
v) `
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
f1
1-
substantial impact =0, no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max pints
H
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 _
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
(no shading, vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
*
4
0
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A 0-4 - 3
dee 1 ', embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __0=5_ 0-5
no evidence = U; common numerous types = max points)___
21 Presence of amphibians --- - .... - 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
1
p (no evidence= 0• common numerous t es = max points) 4
0
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 -
no evidence= 0; common numerous t es = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
= 0; abundant evidence:-! max points
no evidence
_
Tot ,
al Points Possible 100 100 I00

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed to coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DW Q#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
!Jr c
1. Applicant's name: -Tow,- o ( ?j ?i2+ 5 2. Evaluator's name:
- ?-'_ ?i
3.Datc of evaluation:
/?/V n 4. Time of evaluation:
S. Name of stream: T) 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 5
9. Length of reach evaluated: d 1,E 10. County: W a- ka-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): l f' .' lrtJ
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet,; -Qrtho (Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearby AM-fill landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): i? 0 f1
0
15. Recent weather conditions: V I w 75- 9
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N to`/
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES O) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: /U % Residential % Commercial 10 % Industrial _% Agricultural
0 % Forested l7 % Cleared / togged % Other ( 1
--r 22-BardAll width: 73.-Bank.beight-(from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -_ Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight V Occasional bends _-Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of Nvorkshect (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregiort 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. / j
Total Score (from reverse): tl/ t1J Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ?=) ,____ Date _)/1106,
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and en iroruneutal professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT ' RANGE SCORE;
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
5 0
4 0-5
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0- -
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points) `
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 65 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 I?
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 04
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 /
no discharge = 0; springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
f t
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 !
V) no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points) /
..W.. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 - - - - - --0-2,- • - -
dee 1 entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
_.g- .. ___----__-.Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 _.. 0-2 rl
t/
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive ehannelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homo enous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
y, (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
E-? 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
7
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
`
rouahout = max oints
no visible roots = 0; dense roots th
- 15 _
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 /.
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ri les or pools= 0• well -developed= max oinLS
H 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent varied habitats = max points)
lg Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __.__075_..._ 0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians -- .. 0-4 0-4 0-4 )
p (no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 d
Q = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
no evidence
23 ,
Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0.5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
a
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first a e
*'nese cnaractensucs are not asscsseu in cvastai sueaus.
USACE AID# DWQ#
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKS14EET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: -Tv"i, CC It (i 2. Evaluator's name:
r `-`

(indicate on attached map)
3.Date of evaluation: r ' 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: - ( 6. River basin: A C t",z c ``
z 1ST
7. Approximate drainage area: G Yti1 t 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 6 0-6 F 10. County: W,? , "e-0-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude ex. 34.872312: v 15 • Co '
( ) Longitude (ex. -77.55661)): / ? • ? ? 31
Method location determined (circle): GPS ? T'opo Sheet) Qrlho (Aerialy Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation no a ncarh 1?d's and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N o 17:?
15. Recent weather conditions: a V to 1.1 ?{ J a
16. Site conditions at time of visit: su N IJ 1?
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries 13abitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters --Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES a NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
- --- l
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: d 0 % Residential 119 % Commercial _-p_ % Industrial _% Agricultural
60 % Forested /0 % Clcarcd / Logged - % Other (
-..22. Bankfull width: _23-Bank-height4from bed to top of-bank):..
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Hat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) __ Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander ...,-.-.--Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet Qocated 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-Zbntinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6 ;7 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature - ___ Date 17M d
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envir n ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make it prelinunary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please. call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION PO SCORE'
Coastal Piedmo
7 9
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0.4

no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) -
-2 Evidence of past human alteration
- 0-6 0-5 0-5 --
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5 / J
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 _
a no discharge = 0; springs, sees wetlands etc. = max oints
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 j
/
no flood .lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max uints)
.. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4-,---- --- 0-2 - -
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
__-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0-4-- - 0-2 rl
no wetlands = 0• lar a adjacent wetlands = max points) t?
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max , oints
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
4
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
3
fine homogenous = 0• lame diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max. oints
F 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 / 1
7"
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots through ut = max points
L ' 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 /
T
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffleski les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 - J Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
? little or no habitat = 0; frequent. varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
dce l embedded = 0; loose structure = max) --
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __0-5.__ 0-5
(no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points
>4
0 21 Presence of amphibians - 0-4 0-4 0-4 ?
p no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)
4
0
0 22 Presence of fish 0 4 0-4 -
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
Z'
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
Ii

*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSIJEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach tinder assessment:
^ "1
1. Applicant's name: w?Jn -- r;rJi(l?r ?r?" V615 2. Evaluator's name: T, BG.ItV
1Date of evaluation: 5 / 1 / 0 6 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: - 1/,/ 7- 6. River basin: _ CIA
7. Approximate drainage area: ?• ('?' 8. Stream order.
F ?CC2 e.
1 s ?-
9. Length of reach evaluated: - - - 50 10. County: Wa- k a.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -___/ ,g • 3 'o e, `Y' W
Method location determined (circle): GPS p Shcet? .( ho Aeria Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation n to nearby pp?ds anZI landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed charnel work (if any): __N0 tl
15. Recent weather conditions: } V 1't w %r '75 - 8 = F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N ii
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ---Section 10 _--Tidal Waters --Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ; NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
-- ?..?.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial 1 U % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested r'a % Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
_._22-Bankfull width: _ 223-Bank-height (from bed to top of-bank):. - _
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) t! Gcntle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight ? Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more c6ntinuity, 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 I W representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse)
63
Comments:
Evaluator's Signatur Date tJ
This channel evaluation ornt is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and a ,ironmcntal 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 nutigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
DWQ# _ Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of How / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 ?
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max oinLs
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
7
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 r l
--
(extensive dischar es =0; no discharges= max points) T
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 7-

(no discharge = 0; springs, sees wetlands, etc. = max points) 1
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
rn (no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
0
2
- 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4-- -
-----
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
_ Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0- 0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5 /
fine homogenous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 i d
"T
a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0 dense roots throu hout = max Dints
v) - 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
`T
(substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

? 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
H little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
.
. 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
`
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __0.5_ 0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) _
21 Presence of amphibians --'- _, 0-4 0-4 0-4
p no evidence = 0• coirunon numerous types = max points)
0
4
0 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 - 0
(no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0 5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
63
TOTAL. SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in wasia1 sua;adis.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: po r f' r4
3.Date of evaluation: 1
- J? [ f ! d 6, 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: t' f N d
7. Approximate drainage area: 0,1 t`+°1 s_
9. Length of reach evaluated: S6 LF
6. River basin: c 41.? C, FC a r
8. Stream order: 1,5 4-
10. County: W a. ktL
I1.. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if an),): _
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 J • -`V Longitude (ex. -77.556611): e • ?'? = `r a r?
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet) rth? Aer 1 Photo/GI5 Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation no a neafi`?l8tttiMiiii landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N o 1.4 F-
0 15. Recent weather conditions: 7 5) - 9 r- ? r
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N tJ `?
17. Identify any special watenvay classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?p % Residential % Commercial lU % Industrial ____% Agricultural
% Forested ?a % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
-,..22..Bankfull width: 13.-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-ba ik):-_--
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) -Z Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 1001o) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -StraightOccasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the work-sheet. 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 forni used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 54 - Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 'it-&- . `% _ Date o
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envirim ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of F,ngineers to make a prelitninary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this forth is subject to USACF approval and does not imply a
particular ruitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 et"
'
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) °
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 t.l
extensive discharges = 0; no dischar es = max points) T
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
d no dischar e = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
? 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 t
. no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
-• •. 7 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0-5 0-4----- ---•-0-2-- r
a, deeRI entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
{
-g_. ---Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-2 t
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 e
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
'
extensive do osition = 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homo enous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max mints
M 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 -µ-, .
no visible roots = U; dense roots throughout = max points)
H
-
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
,
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints
_ 16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = tnax mints
E' 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 t, .
t
H little or no habitat = 0' fre uen varied habitats = max point
d 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NIA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 _-0=5-.. 0-5
no evidence = 0• conumn numerous t es = max points)
F Presence of amphibians - 0-4 0-4 0-4
p no evidence = 0- common numerous t yes = max Dints
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max of nts
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessee to coastal screams.
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: ?r7!"J?: 2. Evaluator's name: !arrP+l"
?-
3.Date of evaluation: 5,I 7 / D 4, Time of evaluation:
'
?, i-'Y2
G
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area:
4 o- i M; 7-
8. Stream order: ! S -"
9. Length of reach evaluated: --- L j5w I- G 10. County: ` R Zed":,.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): _
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 1
Method location determined (circle): pnposc Topo Sheet ho Acrial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation car bTT ds andandmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N b N
15. Recent weather conditions: 5 V'?t iJ !'
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N W
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _.--..__S=Lion 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES "NO ? if yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? \...J' NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: / 0 % Residential t O % Commercial to % industrial _% Agricultural
(00 % Forested 10 % Cleared / Logged _ % Other
- '72-Bankfull width:- 23. Hank height-(from bed to top of-bank):---.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Z Flat (0 to 2%) _ Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight 1/-Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more Ebntinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
S-0
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ' Date 5-12-104-
This channel evaluation orm is intended to he used only as a guide to assist landowners and envy on ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE SCURL+'
- Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 l
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
?
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) -
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 3
O- 0-4 0-4 /
no dischar e = 0• springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points) E
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain r 0 4 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
Entrenchment / floodplain access -5 0-4----. -.--0-2
a. (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
_Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0 0-2
no wetlands = 0; large ad'accnt wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max oints
-
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
'
y, (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
i 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
Q 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 -,,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max points) _ _-
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
t
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0' well-developed = max points)
F' 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 ;
H little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 -
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A"` 0-4 0-4
"
dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) OA 0-5 }
no evidence = 0• common numerous t es = max points)...
0 21 Presence of amphibians -°" 0-4 0-4 0-4
p (no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessea to coastal screams.
5TREAM
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: n I ?t r}; Project: A0.rdvoLr?. Latitude: .' • (? ,? ? ° l?l

Evaluator:

ite ^ s
: >y olly 5P,^t ........... _ .... ..

.
Longitude.
Total Points:
Steam is at least interntinent 2 S-
County: Other ?
A7 r ! X
Q
d N
If J9 o perennial if :20 e.g.
ua
ame:

A. Geomorphology Subtotal = V ) Absent Weak Moderate 1 Strong
1`'. Continuous bed and bank 1 0 1 2 3' ,
2. Sinuosity
_ 0
.- 1 2 3.j

3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ..
---_......
0
1
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 r' 3
5. Activelrelic flood lain 0 1 - ,
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1
_
7. Braided channel (-0) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1) 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts
...... ......... ..__.._._.__.. 0 ! 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 l 0.5') 1 1
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5 `j
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.

B Hydrology (Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14• Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season
0
1
2

s..3
16. Leaflitter _ 1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 j 0.5 1 5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1, 1.5 1
19. Hydric soils (redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = / • U ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". F us roots in channel 3 - 2) 1 0
_
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2• 1 0
22. Crayfish 07) 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 00 E 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us
_ ( 0.5 1 1.5
i4 u. Wetland plants in streambed
- FAC=0.5; FACW=0.751 Q?L=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=e--')
- -?- --
.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
sTPE??'?v1 g - FE R
North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 57/1 Project: AardV0.r-?. Latitude: ')s' -o I
Evaluator: Site: 14011Y Sprf ? S Longitude: ?3
Total Points:
Sti-rum is in least haermi1Rr111
County: WA?c Other Ayy????(
J ? ? G X
e.g. Quad Name:
lr &9 or erewiin! ij ?3U
A. Geomor halo (Subtotal= (LI .0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting,--_- 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits _0 1 2 3
9 . Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts 0 .1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 1 _ 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
l Y? es3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.

BHydrolo(Subtotal=
Absent
Weak ------
Moderate -------
Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs, since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic_features present? No = 0 Yes = 1'.5
C. Biology Subtotal = &. Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
215, Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 _ 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 _ 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 0 0.5 1 1.5
FAC=0.5; FACW=O L=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=
.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presenco of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use hack side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 6 i;,Z 1,/0( Project: Aow v,. 1, Latitude: ?5, t
? 5-() t Al r!
Evaluator: ?a. Site: L!.{, I (,? _ •;,: .. ,,, Longitude: 70 o f, -xe/ "U!
Total Points: Other
59ream is m least iarermirrerrr ?^
C j'
5- County: J

bkr.Z,

e.g Quad Name:
1
If 20 or per•caerial it _t0
A. Geomor hology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1E'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence _ 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 : 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 _ 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 '0 5 _ 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin4
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
C Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.

r 1 )
B Hydrology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1

_ 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
- 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish Q 0. 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 0.5 1 1.5
29°. and plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW!A ;QBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
°.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence bT aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
sTt?El+? ? " ?'?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: A (`r Project: AcLrd V0.-'v-
Latitude: 0

1\I
.,S (?' ?
t?
........ .... .....
Evaluator: iJ. ww k Site 14011Y Seri 1)55 Longitude: 73. j!
Total Points:
l
i
i
i
!
"
County: WAL-5 Other AX
east
lderm
(
Stream
s ar
e,tt ?
7
•
e. ,Quad Name:
9
tr ?9 or pere,arial if `.-30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= r?• Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 I 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 ( 3"
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
93. Natural levees
1
2
10. Headcuts t 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 X0.5,. 1 1..
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5,
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes= 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= 10-0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris - 0 0.5 ' 1 1.
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic_features) resent? No = 0 'Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 1 0 • Absent Weak Moderate Strong
--........ .__.
20". Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 __....__.._.1____..._.... ....__1 ......_...__..
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 1, 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5
5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed BL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
FAC=0.5; FAC
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence o75quatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
3Tr2CAm D - {r r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ? C?b Project: Am rd Vltrk Latitude: ?? _ . la - r) i n ? (??
Evaluator: 7", 'n ry Site: Holly 5pri t)S Longitude: 7L7_
Total Points: Other
streau+ is at least i+uerwillew Zd.o County A1I 49 or perennial if %30
?C e.g. Quad Name: APEX
A. Geomor hology (Subtotal = i Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 ( 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel _ 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de o0s 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees (0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 -5-
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS reap or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
" Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
R Hvrfrnlnnv (Suhtntal = 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season
16. Leaflitter
17. Sediment on plants .or debris
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent?
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
0 1 2 3
0 2 3
1.5 1 0.5 0
0 ( 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 M 1.5
No =0 Yes=1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish { 0) 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves
- 0 1 2 3
........... ....
-
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance
- 0.5 1 1.5
27.
Filamentous algae; eri h ton t .Q 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW:=.0.7-5; 06.[.=1.5; SAV=2.0;
{ Other 0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presebcaVf agCiatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ?,r 1 I Project: Ao rAvoLrk Latitude: 's i ? n 1\I
Evaluator W Site: Hole 5prl n s Longitude: f , fl y 'r I°I

Total Points:
Stream is at least haerniitlent T Q
County: ?,•J 'C Other AX
e.g. Quad Name:
If a'9 or erenniali zi0
A. Geornor hold Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 . Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity_-.-- 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ? _ _ 0 1 2 3'
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1, 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 4 2 3
7. Braided channel y` 1 2 3
-
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9". Natural levees V 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 LTD 2 3
11. Grade controls Q.. 0.5 1 1.5-
12. Natural valle or drainageway_ 0
-------- 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
" Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 8'. 0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or rowing season__ 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 ' 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or iles Wrack lines) _0 0.5 -4 -1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic_features) present? _ No = 0 es = 1.5
5^
C. Biolo Subtotal = - Absent Weak Moderate Strong
?
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 r 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra ish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 __..... __?....._..........- 2 - --3.-
24. Fish b 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 Q'i 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 6 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= ,7 BL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items O and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presbnce-of'aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
-5 rREl+rM E° /N T'
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: -` I ?` Project: Aq rd Vpt,-1:. Latitude: ?- ° N
'B .C0?J.
Evaluator: :5,,,,, Site: Hold Sprit) s Longitude:
Total Points:
stream is tit lent interinitieiu 1- ?'
"? r' ' a
'
County: WA< -
C Other
R?X
e.g. Quad Name:
11
;-Y9 or perenninl it 00
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= L I! ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 _-
1
? 2
3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 _ 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3

8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
tIj) --
.---_.-_-
2 _
3
90. Natural levees 0) 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11 Grade controls
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0
0 C 0.5)
0.5 1
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. .- `.
No = 0?
Yes = 3
" Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
g Hydrology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs, since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0. 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 t 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 0.5 ._1.. _ 1.5
19. H +Zdnc soils (redoximorphic features) present? _ No = 0 Yes = 1.5'
C. Biology (Subtotal= S ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
s_......_
21 . Rooted plants in channel
s 3
2
1
0

22. Crayfish
0
0.5 _....
1
1.5
23. Bivalves r° 0 1 2 3
24 Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 _
0.5 r" 1 - 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0 0.?) 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us `0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FA =0.5; FACW=0.75;-.Q L=1.5; SAV=2.0;
other=0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presett %-O aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
sTRE ?rvt F? t N'1?'
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: AgrAVork Latitude:
am
Evaluator: a J
, , t Site Holly Sp'ri f) 5 Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is nt feast intermittent''T
• ?t
County: ?N ?C Other
e.g. Quad Name: APEX
/f &9 or erennnial if ?Q

holo (Subtotal = t U )
A. GeolTlor
pgy

Absent

Weak

Moderate

Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-fool sequence _ _.? _ , 0 (.,J., 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 (2 3
5. Active/relic fioodplain 0, 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel Co 1 _._.......__?_.___._.._.... ...... _ _3_-.
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9". Natural levees f" Qt 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1
- t 2. 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 F 1 15
12. Natural valley or drains eway__- 0 0:5 1 C 1.5 ,`
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= Absent Weak M_o_ Berate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or rowing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0
I x.0.5; 1 1.5
18. organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) , . 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 s Yes = 1.5'
C. Biology Subtotal = (0.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20'), Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 2 ... 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 - 1 -- -- 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 05_ 1 ` 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5, 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us t 0. 0.5 1 1.5
29'. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=q,7.5,-JC?qL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the prese uzf aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
ST'REAri4 Gr - INT'
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5 /? Project: rd v0.rk Latitude: (o SO N
Evaluator: rrr Site: H W Spri' h S Longitude: 78, af a ? q- 14
Total Points: ll 75
Sll'Palil is al leas! interlllitfoll ft'ry
(4, !! "
'
ounty: WAk- C
C Other
A REX
e. g. Quad Name:
if 49 ar erranial if
30
A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal= ?t - Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain _ 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9. Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 - p 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
`-------?"
Yes = 3
0 Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
!t
B Hydrology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge . 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 3

16. Leaflitter
1.5
1 _
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 i a
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 .5
1 19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 C. Biology (Subtotal= b • 7 5 Absent _Weak Moderate Strong

20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1- 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 _
2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 { 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0.5 1
27. Filamentous algae; eri h fon 0 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75• BL=1.5; SAV=2,0;
er=0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
we-T-1-M a -- R
WETLAND RATING WOItKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: A(QrLay k ('TOcJn o
? I-b11%4 SPy,? County: tJAk
Nearest Road: Z&114-4%11d, f'frref 9xtens)^ -` Date: 5 2 b
Wedand Area (ac): 0.16 Wetland Width (ft):
Name of Evaluator(s): j F,a r??d 1
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
-1-on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
Soil Series: WorAmo
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width- 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
ADJACENT LAND USE
(within 1/2 mile upstream, ups ope or radiu
forested/natural vegetation 75- °,u
agricultural/ urbanized /49_ %
impervious surface _ %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
I :7vv,cu s e ??.s us
2 Boehrne-+-tet CM?1++ctr(Ca
S ft t5rc. '
4 a+-?,c u r 1 d a
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
sen,ipenmanently to permcnently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
v/ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE X 4.00 - f Z
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION X 4.00
POLLUTANT REMOVAL * X 5.00 = ?U
WILDLIFE HABITAT X 2.00 = 6
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT 3 X 4.00 = /2-
RECREATION/EDUCATION 2 X 1.00 = 2-
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE _ 6
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
Ivg;TLI w) - -f3
NVETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: JTAr? VotYV (1-0 u?? 01 l-k, (6 Sp,W-,) County: watt
Nearest Road: q Sq 'ref f Q s',o Date: ST O
Wetland Area (ac): p. -& Wetland Width (ft): /o a
Name of Evaluator(s): 7. aartre+f
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
? on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
V otherh69dWdW1COnabLeh1J ct,reA
SOILS:
Soil Series: Wo{5haM
predominantly organic (humus, snuck or peat)
V--"r predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
V' freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
1' FTLAND'I'YPE: (select one)*
ADJACENT LAND USE
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslopc or radius)
forested/natural vegetation -7 S %
agricultural/ urbanized JO %
impervious surface %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETA'T'ION:
I -Twicus e-K'Sus
? Ace,r t"v bv-v rn
3 "ha IA,4%4f?v.9 0CC fh A -1
4 BneMMP..rtq dyli&-jr igg
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipemiancntly to penncncntly flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Bottomland I lardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin _ Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other: _
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels..
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE S X 4.00 = ?-
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 2 X 4.00 =
POLLUTANT REMOVAL 3 X 5.00 = ?
ra
WILDLIFE HABITAT '•- X 2.00 = , r
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT X 4.00 =
1
RECREATION/EDUCATION X 1.00 =

TOTAL WETLAND SCORE
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
We -rL, /N p - v
NVETI.AND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSIO\?
Project Mini c: A%vJm.,- - (Tot,.rn o? {lam, SrriNts) County: W4ee,
Nearest Road: BAMIhell. lk-re f i? f_ e.? sl ?? Date: 4 o b
Weiland Area (ac): tv. , 3 4 Wetland Width (fl): 2..r_ 7s- ?
Name of Evaluator(s): ?3a?r.CCJ f
NVETLAND LOCATION: AD.IACEN7' LAND USE:
(within 112 nu le upstream, ups ope or radius)
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake foremed.1natural vegetation -75- %
on perennial steam agricultural/ urbanized !0 %
on intermittent stream impervious surface %
within interstream c?ivide Adjacent Special Natural Areas
v, other l sr l[ w64A*,ol
SOILS: DOMINANT VEGETATION:
Soil Series: M" o dO-- IVJ 0?5 kA I m vo I o.. r u /I s
predominantly organic (mmus, muck or peat) 2 S'?+l)ak '-04VAe0f- lA
_L predominantly mineral (non-sandy) .l Acre e. brv•-
predominantly sandy 4
IIVDRAULIC FACTORS: FLOODING AND WETNESS:
Freshwater scmipermanently to permenently flooded or inundnted
brackish seasonally flooded or inundated
steep topography ," intermittently flooded or temporary stuftce water
ditched or channelized no evidence of flooding or surface water
total wetland %vidth >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin V Ephemeral Weiland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
\VATER STORAGE X 4.00 = 8
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 2 a 4.00 = 8
? to
POLLUTANT REMOVAL \ 5.00 -
WILDLIFE HABITAT 2- \ 2.00 = ?
AQUATIC LIFE IIABIT,AT Z \ 4.00 - Q
S
R F.CR EATION/EDUCATION I \ 1.00 = 1
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE _ 3
* Add one point if insensitive watershed Lind >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, up.-lope, or radius.
'II, r ,-!i%i'ia1:'/?/R' l?"?i rr,• .ii i ?? \?' ? ^?'. 1 yb" -? f _ ?4?',- $26s>
1. ,J
+^ '; ??11'?-? i :?]e• f' % ? ,\ ? ?Lt? f/ ? 4 1('?\ ? 8 _i'k . l"e ?y, J .'?r ?k '•1 \ 1 //r/?1,`
1 • 1; l ?_ : ice,,, 1 \?'. !oc .? '1. ;f! '-[??le -_ I ??:H r __ ?
` !' >r _ if' X01 : + ? • ?., '\. , ? f? ? I ? ?` _
.4 / ?'c 1 \ /? ,115 _
o
?1 V
rt ?? C
-r`"-, >v (?' ,`.RQ `?lcs4 ??- ,,r ,?\../, -/J?, ?- I i '?6 .\y? ti3 i •.-. J('` \ /? _ ? f - 9M: f \\ _ ?i -
f 4'V
I ? n
\: ? v ?. ? '?I 379• , {
/'f• _ip,?'.. '? J '.i ;? _ ? ! / it
r
?- r
I ,
.mot 1 ? ? ? . I } ~/" ??
;?.. 4-/ I /1 . AID I^.'1 \ 1 j "! P I _??• ,! t\ ?V
"/ i" ?\I I "i l f it i,,j:'?i f','?'W1c .4? I i' r 7 J i, s / • •?' 4M t ) :7 7
il LL
` a- ?: I'LL, I _? ;li _ % / _•- ? I ?.
-? , L_/ r, •? ??, - l _ l ??.' Project Aardvark
7 7.1
,•;? ? .?`, A !`.' " /! '??, 311 k%.? ? P 1 _ 1,t ? t' - -
'? ti• 1
i/ ( ',`V ^?.?"'?i ??.c. i 1 i 1; ' ? ?f r/•. " '? ? -_,.>.-'?? i ? ? ?.. ? ?'? ./ l? ` '? ,':? ?i, _ _ u?. r :il ,R
J11
:@tilra er ?. •?? :'?V ?:
,7 '? -/ V ?_? -?. , i,r? c (?? L? '1;11 / I•n r `).; J
J
fmn
?,,I 1 ( ???,1 `,/? ?A? i ! ., / ?r( -i I_,' ,??:`?.?nf ??./,??,ri - ?.r- 27b ??? ? r ? ??1 ? i' j? ??• __
v .,, 1, i I cif ? ,, ? i '•.i? ?' ?' 1_p ?? ?? ?? ? v ??1.•/fir {1 .. ? !?J. ,7 - -1./?i:
?' { I
71
phi ?, ?:?? ? v? ? I? ? ??? /I /' 1 ? -? /1 / ? .?t? ' ? \. .?/ •- ? ?J,/''. L3 ??? . { r - J.'? ??'%•
1 {f ?\ --i? L`_yt'. y•.?•,• ?1 l.' \',
'I\ t E ?.?1 1,-?_l I •'I! ;1 _ i /-? ";, {. 0 _ -? i 1195 ?,
r???? _?? i? `?.? ii ?? .. r a.
10
" ? ;1\t yy ( , \ `\ ?b 1? \?.,4 L.?,~ \ ?\ '? ? ^ " >% r>r ? •?y I fi ' y .aY `? • ? ? - _
. ? a
??. H. .`t .a•?'-? f ? I {? ;? ? i`'!, `s7 ,,?r•?., ," r ?1. \`° ?04f • v .\? ?, ti 4 / - »7 -
•
r.'?tv ,'.J - '??t `r. .t (. - ?I? ?Iln, y,?`, /r'??r ?`l ' ':[•? .. i ???Fy f.: ?.
4 IA .fin, ,? 1 ?? ? '?!,.'V. ??? ? ?! I !;:/.?/?af?? ?t .t) bct.7 o ? / ?. .ak
1 '. t - t - r-- /\_ - s,a• /, / 'nom/?f I >{ ..i - - _ b? . d . :.:i.. • 6 I1M ._I `'A' - ,? ??
?..?,,.v? ., ? ? ? if I ? cIll; '/?? !? ? '?Aii? /,• _^''y .??.?. ?. ? _ ? I' C, - _
i ? t . ?? _ ??,?°a ? 'i ? ?..-? T ,' _ ' '?;• r r •: Cad' ,..??, ?, ? ? I " - - `VA`''•... ?l; 1 ? : ? .:r .. r't •? ? a./.,
? r A : ? .?,; I . of (r .` _ •d / l • JG I l: ? ? r ; i + .d.? ! p:'? ??.. _. ? , ? ': ? r, '? ? ?'7 _
i
17
?. ? r ? ,.. ?. ?':?. J1' ?.? .{b• /- r 1!, a •.r,w 1/',..? .?,. ` __'?AV q ??(' ?? ?i/ 1., ?? `[-?.L_.? ? H. <>? .? -
{ ; !: , v., ? ? I J ?., i ,? 't't a I `.? > > V': v? ? 1 I n _ ( ?? ? - -..?e_^'1 r-? `'?'-' I't??•`• ??`??
., _. A' 1, ?!?' i /.-. ??y ?(l t.. t' - t'., b ?j ,_\ .IiIS? - r--' - '4 I] i 1; '1t6/ ?.?,+? --tr?,,.?1• ?
1 ?`. / 'i ??? 116
Cem
Prepared For: N linch equals 20oofeet 1:24,000
Figure
TffE TownoF Project VICINITY Aardvark MAP 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,00?t
a
-- - MULKE:Y Holly Town of Holly Springs
9 Springs Source: Maptech Terrain Navigator Pro Version 7.01
NORTH CAROLINA Wake County, North Carolina USGS Topographic Quads - New Hill and Apex
Legend
** =i Perennial Streams (5,694 LF)
Intermittent Important Streams (1,198 LF)
- -- Intermittent Unimportant Streams (1,386 LF)
X11 •
Isolated Streams (226 LF)
Wetlands
-(0 57 Ac
qr
Isolated Wetlands (0.38 Ac)
„ a
1
- Aardvark Corridor
Parcels
y..- A
+x
VIA
JJ
4t,'/�
Ae
41
S
';3. .
Tf. ., r ? rte= i.`- � r a��f • ..." � � �'nd d ���'T �s =a�}� di74T �' �-T s ��.^,-y ' i' ''
Prepared For: STREAM AND WETLANDS N 1 inch equals 400 feet 1:4,800
THE TOWN OF Project Aardvark0 400 800 1'2 Figure
M U LK EYfj011y Town of Holly Springs Feet
E N 6 t N E E R S r CONSULTANTS*Springs Wake County, North Carolina Source: Maptech Terrain Navigator Pro Version 7.01 2
NORTH CAROLINA Prepared: June 30, 2006 Apex S'N - 2002

r' " •' , t, er ?{,°c- at* e.? ? ?? ? ?p,:}r t '4? S ??" t,n, { ?4 3;!%, J,
4
;,a y??f:?dK2:'?,' F?r? _ ,Y 'r ??? ??j`t Legend
!- T.I ti+a.j .C w Z i =:} .n. ?, jL w J' 1 L .??ia! t. IT•+1' h>.?..?a?'LcF x. r 1 ?'lrf M.. . Or-.:'
ri 31 ? M . t -.-..c. :, ^? v"4.--'.'! "` i ?'t _.-,„ - • r =;<. .?; r w - 1 : Soil Ma Unit
.- ..'f , .y>.t ?:? s ,,.'uc.. r, . ,? t 1...? •e 1 1 t. 5>. 'y --, ?skS - '...-^ ...,1:'
J' 3 ra. a. ° v t c i 1
.,''.t'r 4•'a..,,':_?., = Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 4% slopes, H dric B
r h}i,. 6-iytt '?7r. a m. ?'r,iril :?Ss7''3 >4ti '?3?i '.' y{c $t 7 Y
' . ; ''R '^ :?* s• _ `- ? - Mayodan sandy loam, 10 to 15% slopes, eroded
_>n -? . :.-e, * . .,-.. ??> r ?i• a $ °t'F '` •, '?yFy". ? T? a- ?".'+f'"?"Af? ? } ,, ?,,. y"?'T d
j r +a h' f
;• ; " ? _ a ti : 7 r } x ' Mayodan sandy loam, 15 to 25% slopes
.:, u?} ?,
Mayodan gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes
A,' + } y,, ?• F ,fs ,, <' r F x? Mayodan gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes, eroded
tiAgB2 Mayodan gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes
M C °? r f t Ma odan ravel sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes, eroded
Mg82
Mayodan silt loam, thin, 2 to 6% slopes
f
Mayodan sift loam, thin, 6 to 10% slopes
AfA? °r 3i ,,7 f Mayodan sift loam, thin, 10 to 15% slopes
p
.' _ L. a yr ti, . , •1t* - Wehadkee silt foam, HydricA
- ° -Jr Worsham sandy loam, HydricA
:A ??d
Parcels
ardvark Cc^ltlor
rt !, #, + ?1 t [ . qi ai .? Y7A r..a `-f:?;R'd
.
bra .,. ,? ?;? _ ? a ? ??. ?? ? t .. . `' +i dL ?a r r } ??t l-fa ? ? - `
?? ",, `rrc'r [..'? jJg., .,?,, `'r rr.•`i r try y ?'X - tip- Tp'T''rrr•?', L P"'? [:'! z.i`,.
jo. . . 4 et ?
Z f # s fi
t* ! rr, =v y?? f s r, 9 ?'?r. y Zi. r t j ?i,. :,t
A-
a: r by "3 MgC L?_:L 1f r}b`r t X1.4 'r"a^ y.4 ;{
.:
r ti
j ?r s#1r? ?s
AfA / MI "• tr'K< ?. i`. x ! l i f x ff7 e a', , €, + 4 } ` f
f? .i "r y isx/}! t$e °?{wr aFi?f.r 4kt' f
s,?> t)i.? , `f• •?" Lam' 'a
L ??• L.? _ s? i
MYC ;:tit
". !''fit. !r<i?..t rl'?."1x"?..'?.d?, i+R is Y yy4`,y r?r? ??"s !,, 'k r w5
f 1 ; ?"'v,_C•?" ?p.d. ' y ??i+??s t" ,i , ' j J ,d N`t,Y r? ?? 1, S?,L,j t?v.
Mg6 ti r 4? c?M% sa'K .1+4 r rt .?3+,>
..-.X7 ; ! 4•+5 a x,'ti. ??+4, , +3 -,,. 4! k t 3 ar ' t., J .?
-.??' : MgBZ ?? "?,?#?' 'y•i-i... ?*?.'•?. `?' a^'a'+a d•'rx *,r i Jill r +?,C.
r x} 1 •e a
41. .
r it MgC
r,. ,a,' a r °C i±? f ???"?} j < dr a ? ; M at -!•„ i! fir:^.- ?i r ?.{- r (:' rte. ',"„
Aft`.
w xf' 3,y ..;#x+-IS c'l+an 1; .t L? r<?;"'+ c,'t? 3 v }';r
? MgC ! rM / , ? x , .a?? a, „r . . t ? a • S`t Rr ?, w ?F?, a? ? r?•^ ?. r T t. rr'tr, 0V
.
L? r'4i f ?' .?? #'! x a e r, a K a '3'r*
1 4%,
# $^ r`,S?h}' +Fl - ?s; R L a, ik","'*3? s .,3tF "i ; ,?krt ill ?'
- ' .,S'. -a.;,f j 1w ti .j •? s't,«? ? ' ,_' ' , a ,01 ?. v?y.i x ?t ,' s•. ? }; 4?-^.• • ?', .ai 4.?- ;il f?.:. ? y'.u ? lr• .`Is??.ji ? 'l' .?{rS„ot,.
`.
r'r : 'T' a .",•,i.1.,?.,,yY, _?? w : -y• . :{ ?„ 13 ttr'YS,' ) 1 4 „, t ?f*jg e?y •??'. ?T?i R.ti .i1,? ", _ . ,
'€. +,: •(.'.s+:l:-iI +?w;iY+S?•?,.:? ° 1 -'f'i't ,i'', A 1.,e'+,.
T Vt. ;-q Ik
vwp
- • ,???.?? +. ?t! .,?+'k"6--? Prt'Q. 't..,,yw r+'`` f?,,},, _ . /' ??t, :f"P_?3t?' ?.S"..•?1'Stt•'y?? ?r. rr??..?a±;?pti?." '" ?_•? ?«, o
y
f
',w - ,;, A: .•?_? w1' ???., ?•f?.'. .S{,? •^? i!3.- r+ i•',s i+.'Ad y.?j slr.6".
?'? ?. - ? a , ;*?'. rr ?. r.. ., ? r,: • 1T, .-"1? ~',?4 ?? '?"Y t '-t,.. ,
,:?x'+f47*? '!?`' ~ .v - ';r °? `ql'. <•?i .Jfti "'" ^'1 `,? .1f i + ?# ??X.?z? .r 'Yt'? '? ,+' - ?•'ir ° - +? ,?
y ?. ?? ice, f? 'r,;.. xi"r y ' ' i? t.a??,r?, •+r> r. ..h?;, ?? y 1 t ret
! - r ? •.. +, _:\. ( ?i'E'2 ? . ,, ` w ?• .(_.1 r J'
f ,
;; .. ' f, .. ?;... c n ' .?,
Prepared For: SOILS N I inch equals 400 feet 1:4,800
THE TOWM of 0 400 800 1,200 Figure
4 M U LIB E Y Holly Project Aardvark Feet
Springs Town of Holly Springs Source: Maptech Terrain Navigator Pro Version 7.01 3
NORTH C A R O L I N A Wake County, North Carolina Apex SW - 2002
MYC 3 M1c2 1 / l \ n ; /_J . r
r } �" MyD \
�I
",
' �i,.• MyD... � / MYD I � .,5. •,� ". elf. Cp k' WE�
W h C P e'• '�•� r
MYC
e'J : f
WY
zM YCY. „
� . / .`' f I a", M v C MYB
M MgC
% g 1
y62 •. -
V '
/C• M C M¢CZ 1 Wy
' \ \��O `•�,(•Y. f WY i - g M¢C2
AfA fE MyD
:Ory ... - .. .� .l- .. ..._ .....�
Au fMYC M�gL ��� �g M
��Gry r MyD
MYD
O Cm 1 MYB ` m ), MyD
MyD / MYC MYC
�iy
�. Au ` »r "c p• i S l O MYD MyB
MyC ue MgC / ..
i \ MBC MYD
j f f
MyD..-'
-� WE
I % MYD o MYC MgB2
MYC WE MYD MYD �C
1
�✓ �� s � �
MBC
WY �M�:C2�1 � •,
% • MyC MgC
Cm y MyB M9132
MyC1` MyD ` 4lee MBC2 — Mge .
'✓ ' MVB M yC .9 MgC MgC
o o MyB
� MvD WY, Gu
Mf.-.- . ..•o o ; •' MgC �p`L �
�. � ,•
Fm 2iy •�n _-,Myb l ' _ _ •�_J � My,(;;' MfOZ\•. � / � / I '�
{ MBB !
' V. °°.fy1YD MYD M -C`. ` n MgC WY /v MKC W
M¢C2 �� gC2 X' Mtpti'
M o _
. y y',ec,2 M¢B2 / SITE � • ��- � 4%
MYB—MYD �4• Mfd"1�'` J' Mg MfE h,
LOCATION"-MfD2 ! MYD
MgC2
MYD
MyD
MyC MYB / MyD % z
i� QI 10 f f D�
�U/
�,�,�'
Bf M C WY MyB
yC / fE
MYD � 41 W
Y
MYB2 ���, •� �� "° � � li% � My1,,, � �, MKC -�N
MKC
Z) �`' tl.X51 C if / ?'i a • n. fv1BB p
MyD i ' / �My ►wC •� , - - - -- -
�`� MVC2 MYC ; G •' M PwP N1yB �'� : ;tt�,.' PkF our.
\Au qfA' Au �c
Cp Y Aft
{� MYB AtA t • /'� • • —( PkC
/(
Au Cp PkF y�y` .� CP� r .�
Y0Y� PkF PkF HrC r
PkF ' PkF I MgB
Wake County Soil Survey Map
M U L K -E YFigure No.
Novartis V & D Holly Springs site
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS Wake County, North Carolina
1:15,840
Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Wake County Soil Survey, 1970

Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.
4560 Horton Street
Emeryville, California 94608-2916
I N OVA RT I S Tel [phone]
\ www.novartis.com
August 11, 2006
Harold Brady
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Section 401/404 Permit Application Process
Proposed Novartis USFCC Facility, Phase 1, Holly Springs, NC
Dear Mr. Brady,
Please accept this letter as authorization for Mulkey Engineers & Consultants to act on
behalf of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics in the Section 401/404 permit application
process for the above referenced project.
Sincerely,
Jerry Hoekwater
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics
USFCC Project Manager
1K'
THE TOWN OF
-i lQl?y
i C
Springs

August 11, 2006
Harold Brady
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27511
IRe: Section 401/404 Permit Application Process
Proposed Holly Springs Novartis site, Phase 1
Dear Mr. Brady,
Please accept this letter as authorization for Mulkey Engineers &
Consultants to act on behalf of the Town of Holly Springs in the Section
401/404 permit application process for the above referenced project.
Sincerely,

rr iSudano, St41h PE
Director of Engineering
I
cc: Heather V. Keefer, CFM, Environmental Specialist
Project File
Correspondence # 50283
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Strect
1105 Springs, N.C. 27540
% ww.hollyspringsnc.us
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
E
M
M
N
NO
ME
EM
.
AUG-25-2006 17:28 FROM:DWO-WETLANDS 9197336893
Oao? N Ar??QG
August 25, 2006
EXPRESS REVIEW ACCEPTANCE LETTER
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics
Attn: Ms. Deanna Dearborn
4560 Horton Street, M/S Z-100
Emeryville, CA 94608
Dcar Ms. Dearborn:
Project Name: Novartis V&D Holly Springs, North Calrollitlda. Site
Wake County
On. August 25, 2006, the 401 Oversight/Express Pe tm. tting Unit of the Division of Water Quality received a
request from Mr. Harold Brady of Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, regarding a project known as " Novartis
V&D Holly Springs Site" for acceptance into the Express Review Program. This letter advises you that your
project will be accepted into the Express Review Program once the following items are received:
I ) The application fee of $3,000.00 [for 401 Water Quality Certification + Isolated Wetlands Permit], made
payable to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality;
2) Five (5) complete and collated copies of the PCN Application Form;
3) One (1) copy of the Addendum to the PCN;
4) Five (5) copies of all site plan information pertaining to this project (please refer to the Addendum
h ttp://l12o.enlr,state.ne.us/newettands/sonadd5.pdf);
5) If your project requires a stormwater management plan (30% impervious surface area or above), you are
required to submit those plans along with the. application package
't'hank you for your attention to this matter,
The clock; for this project will not start until receipt of the completed application package and required fee are
received. If the impacts arc greater than indicated on the Initial Interest Form and/or the services are different,
you may be required to remit an additional fee.
If you have any questions or.vish to discuss these matters further please do not hesitate to call Ms.. Lio Myott at
919-733-9502 or Dr. Cynthia Van Der Wielc at 919-715-3473.
Sincerely,
.
(,yn?dt Karoly, Manager
401/Express Review Oversite Unit
CBKJcvdw
cc: File copy
401 Ursighi ! Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Stmlce Canter, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crobtree Boulevard, Sidle 240, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Fhons: 919733.17661 FAX 919-7"9311ntemet h1n i8i2'n.cn r.a. G?ce•t)c,ub,/ncwctlunds
T0:98511918 P:2/2
Michael F. Eavlcy, tinvernor
William G. (toss Jr., Secretary
North CaTulina Department of t?nvimnmcnt and Natmml Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
N'b LIC I nit
)Valrrra!!?
An Equal ppWunNyMkrnativeAction Employar-50%Recycledll0% PostConsmw Paper
03-21-'06 13:09 FROM-DENR EEP 9197152001 T-143 P02 U-681
tCm
EVafflcemeht
PROGRAM
August 21, 2006
Harold Brady
Mulkey Engineers
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27511
Project: Novartis Holly Springs Site County: Wake
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will be issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
CaUdoging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq.l't.) (Sq.>;t.)
Riparian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh Cold Coo] Warm
Cape Fear 0 0.38 0 0 0 290 0 0
03030004
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio, (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the
compensatory mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or
CAMA Permit. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact David Robinson at [phone].
Sincerely,
iam D Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Monte Matthews, USACI?-Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ-Raleigh
File
RCd'f.ori4ttg... ... Pro" our StA&

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

0 n 7t I 6 JACOBS
§ NOVARTI S
c ENGINEERING
HORTON ST
.
4560 1880 WAYCROSS RD.
Y/ EMERYVILLE, CA 94608-2916 CINCINNATI, OH 45240
CONTACT: D DEARBORN CONTACT: AMER TAKIEDDINE
(TEL) EL) 510.923-3569
(TEL) 513-595-7402
(FAX) 510-652-6059 (FAX) 513-595-7909
VC
lo of
i/" l/i rj! ?r I s
1 % /J
I 1 I ?' ; / 1 % PLAN NOTES
I ? ' 1 ""rt r rrrl 1
S 10 1 H:2V REINFORCED EARTH SLOPE
1 1 i ! 1D ?RETAINING WALL OVER PERENNIAL
,+ v f 1 i STREAM
+
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN THIS AREA
?'1 1 \ r i i IS BEING SURVEYED AND WILL BE
\` r REVISED.
r• ?r? ?J1 rl ? r ,?i i i i
r%(5?v,,i NOTE:
STREAM & WETLAND DELINEATIONS SHOWN
I / RECIEVED 7-13-06 AND PERPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS.
I 1[,
SURVEYED BY RONALD L. NESARY PLS
NO. NC L-4535.
t
ISOLA STREAM
t
I N IAE ?I F. F
t I )& i I NT \?
p4T t 1 t \\. i
t i I \
f f I 1 FFFENT i 'I
1 PO AtJT
I ( I
:AM
i
' r 1 2 f
r i ,h t ) l' I I' f 1
i
T OF HOLLY S
? i
t
r i
i ? f /err f%)` i•??` ? i ? ? • \ ? • ? ?
NO. REVISIONS DATE
A ISSUE FOR 401 8124

19 cc
Z a
am
/?
V
A
Z ?

?J^
W

W o aHN6

W N
?a
a
O 00 Z
0
V
Q Z
z ;z
cc
7 W T.

vJ p101
da In
~
CC 0
0
C?
0'NW

to in
O R io
co
ot?

O c
W Z
FJ ?

0>

mW
W
?

bn=l
C-J S K-6

Wetland Impact #1
s
Stream Impact #2
Stream Impact #3 1 /,1?1, j

Stream Impact #4

PLAN NOTES
1 H:2V REINFORCED EARTH SLOPE
RETAINING WALL OVER PERENNIAL
STREAM
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN THIS AREA
IS BEING SURVEYED AND WILL BE
REVISED.
NOTE:
STREAM & WETLAND DELINEATIONS SHOWN
RECIEVED 7-13-06 AND PERPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS.
SURVEYED BY RONALD L NESARY PLS
NO. NC L-4535.
Rw
lK

NO. REVISIONS DATE
A ISSUE FOR 401 ZMA

lot?
Z
in to
lz
O
a LL.
Q 1-

u N
is
u
Z
O 00

?F 0
u
V? az
Z 3z
7W v?

m
z m
mn
cam
04
N
n
4W?
C
D
C)
m I
.
nn
Cr
gly
? Z--
?
aC&
N O
m WFLL
Q vv

0 1C
1
0 Z
F
A
Z d2!
0?
z
AA
' \\ ?
? m
n
W
,
'?

my

OFT

C-JSK-6
0 400' 900' 1200'
FEET
RM T
71 LE
NO. REVISIONS DATE
A ISSUE FOR 401 5124

Onh
W
W
in
oc
z %- %-
FNW
ic J-
ul

LL, U.

W N
44V

a
oz 44
oo
-:
cc
Z
o
V ? 4z
Z ;z
?Z
7W

w
10
m"m
N
N d H
4

ID CrV.
a in w
Oc
!W Z?XQ^
co
N O WFa
Qv..r

0 V
00 1-

7 Z
z F J_
C
>
A _
IMF m W
W
?

C-JSK-8
CAMPUS A, B, a C SITE PLAN

1.

f1Q[G?1
4
l
6
77
PROJECT AARDVARK; U.S. AuCC FACILITY WETLANDS STUDY ALT 2 ScAu 1:"
`I
) N O VA RT I S JACOB$

Protected Species Technical Report
"Aardvark" Property Development Project
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mulkey, Inc. (Mulkey) has been retained by the Town of Holly Springs to prepare a Protected
Species Technical Report as part of the environmental studies for a proposed development project
in Wake County, North Carolina. The "Aardvark" property was surveyed for rare, threatened, and
endangered species during May 2006 (Figure 1). The threatened and endangered species survey
focused on threatened and endangered species listed by US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) as
occurring in Wake County, North Carolina as of March 9, 2006. A field investigation was
conducted to determine the presence or absence of the species within this tract. The project study
area was found to contain suitable habitat for only Michaux's sumac. Surveys were conducted for
Michaux's sumac; however, no individuals were found within the project study area. Project
construction will have No Effect on the federally threatened or endangered species listed by the
United Sates Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Wake County, North Carolina.
INTRODUCTION
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are in the process of decline due to either
natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected be subject to review by the USFWS.
Prohibited actions that may affect any species protected under the ESA are outlined in Section 9 of
the Act. Species may receive additional protection under separate federal or state laws.
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened are recorded in
Section 4 of the ESA. As of March 9, 2006, the USFWS identified three Endangered (E) species
(red cockaded woodpecker, dwarf wedgemussel, and Michaux's sumac) and one Threatened (I)
species (bald eagle) known to occur in Wake County. As defined by the Act, an endangered species
is any plant or animal which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range within the foreseeable future. A threatened species is any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
The survey was undertaken to determine if threatened and endangered species are present on the
proposed "Aardvark" development property located approxunately two miles west of downtown
Holly Springs. The subject property is approximately 160 acres and located entirely within the
Cape Fear River basin. The dominant vegetative community on the subject property is mixed
pine/hardwood forest found throughout the subject property. The existing dirt roads, abandoned
logging decks, and the sewerline easement are the only open areas present within the subject
property. The streams and wetlands on-site have been delineated and are being coordinated with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) for certification.
METHODS
The subject property was visited by two staff ecologists from Mulkey Engineers & Consultants in
May 2006. All forest stands and other habitat types on the property were visited during the survey.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) snaps were reviewed on June 14, 2006 to
determine if any protected species have been identified near the project area. This map review
confirmed that no species classified as Endangered or Threatened by the USFWS have been
identified within a one mile radius of the project study area. The following species are identified as
federally protected for Wake County. Table 1 shows the federally threatened and endangered
species listed for Wake County. Table 2 (attached) lists all of the federal and state protected species
for Wake County.
Table 1. Federally. Protected Species for Wake County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauXii Endangered
RESULTS
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for delisting)
The bald eagle is a large raptor that ranges in size from 32 to 43 inches tall and has a wingspan
averaging 6 feet. These predators weigh an average of 10 to 12 pounds. Adult body plumage is
dark brown to chocolate brown with a white head and tail, while juveniles are brown and irregularly
marked with white until their fourth year. They are primarily associated with large bodies of water
where food is plentiful and suitable nesting sites are typically found within 0.5 miles of the water.
Nests are made in the largest living tree within the area, with an open view of surrounding land and
a clear flight path to water. Nests can be as large as 6 feet across and are made of sticks and
vegetation. These platform nests may be used by the same breeding pair for many years. Breeding
begins in December or January and the young remain in the nest at least ten weeks after hatching.
Bald eagles eat mostly fish robbed from ospreys or picked up dead along shorelines or other
carrion. They may also capture small animals such as rabbits, some birds, and wounded ducks
(USFWS, 2003).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagles are year-round, transient species in North Carolina. Suitable habitat for the bald eagle
consisting of large areas of open water is not present within the subject property. An area of open
water, Thomas Mill Pond, is located several hundred feet south of the southern property boundary;
however, no nests were observed near the pond. NCNHP maps were reviewed on June 14, 2006
to determine if any bald eagle populations have been identified at or near the project study area.
This map review confirmed that no bald eagle nests or individuals have been reported within a one-
mile radius of the project site. Proposed project construction will not unpact this species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Federal Status: Endangered
This bird is a small, 7 to 8-inch tall woodpecker with a black and white barred back conspicuous
large white cheek surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat. Males have a very small red mark at
the upper edge of the white cheek and just behind the eye. Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) are
found in open pine forests in the southeastern United States where they use open old growth
stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand optimally should contain at least 50 percent pine and lack a thick understory. The RCW is
unique among woodpeckers because it nests almost exclusively in living pine trees. These birds
excavate nests in pines greater than 60 years old that are contiguous with open, pine dominated
foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW may extend 500 acres and must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
Living pines infected with red-heart disease (Formes pint) are often selected for cavity excavation
because the inner heartwood is usually weakened and therefore easier to excavate. Cavities are
located from 12 to 100 feet above ground level and below live branches. These trees can be
identified by "candles," a large encrustation of running sap that encrusts the tree trunk. The sap
encrustation serves as a deterrent for predatory species such as snakes and may be used by the
RCW as a visual indicator of nesting or foraging territories. Colonies consist of one to many of
these candle trees. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 10
to 12 days later (USFWS, 1992).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for RCW does not exist within the project area since there are no pine dominated
stands of appropriate diameter or age present. The pines that are present are young (less than 30
years old) and are within thick stands of hardwoods. NCNHP maps were reviewed on June 14,
2006 to determine if any RCW populations have been identified at or near the project study area.
This map review confirmed that no known RCWs are located within a one-mile radius of the
project site. Proposed project construction will not impact this species.
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Federal Status: Endangered
The dwarf wedgemussel is relatively small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The shell's outer
surface is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with faint green rays that are most noticeable
in young specimens. Unlike some mussel species, the male and female shells differ slightly, with
the female being wider to allow greater space for egg development. A distinguishing characteristic
of this mussel is its dentition pattern: the right valve possesses two lateral teeth, while the left valve
has only one. This trait is opposite of all other North American species having lateral teeth. This
mussel inhabits creeks and rivers that have a slow to moderate current with a sand, gravel, or
muddy bed. These streams must be nearly silt free in order to support dwarf wedgemussels.
The dwarf wedgemussel is considered to be a long-term brooder, with gravid females reportedly
observed in fall months. Like other freshwater mussels, this species' eggs are fertilized in the female
by sperm that are taken in through their siphons as they respire. The eggs develop within the
female's gills into larvae (glochidia). The females later release these glochidia, which then attach to
the gills or fins of specific host fish species. Based on anecdotal evidence, such as dates when
gravid females are present or absent, it appears that release of glochidia occurs primarily in April in
North Carolina. While the USFWS notes that the host fish species is unknown, evidence indicates
that an anadromous fish which migrates from ocean waters to fresh waters for spawning may be
the likely host species. However, recent research has confirmed at least three potential fish host
species for the dwarf wedgemussel in North Carolina: the tessellated darter, Johnny darter, and
mottled sculpin. These fish species are found in Atlantic coast drainages of North Carolina;
however, the dwarf wedgemussel is only found in the Neuse and Pamlico river basins (Moser
1993).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel consisting of nearly silt-free streams, with slow to
moderate currents within the Neuse or Pamlico river basins is not present within the project study
area. Several freshwater mussels were observed in the perennial stream in the northern portion of
the subject property (Stream "SA"); however, due to the subject property's location within the
Cape Fear river basin no dwarf wedgemussel are anticipated to be present. NCNHP maps were
reviewed on June 14, 2006 and this map review confirmed that no populations of dwarf
wedgemussel are known to occur within a two-mile radius of the project study area. Proposed
project construction will not impact this species.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxit)
Federal Status: Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from one to three feet in
height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets.
Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both male
and female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster,
and colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a
red drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Only 36 extant populations are
known, with 31 in North Carolina, three in Virginia, and two populations in Georgia.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. It spreads by
producing cloning shoots from the roots of mature plants. Apparently, this plant survives best in
areas where some form of periodic disturbance provides open areas. At least twelve of the plant's
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of
artificially maintained clearings (USFWS 1993).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac consisting of sandy or rocky open woods or open areas of
periodic disturbance is present in the project study area. The project study area is dominated by are
clayey textured, thickly vegetated areas. However, there are several locations throughout the
subject property that contain more rocky soils that contain significantly less vegetation. These area
tend to be along the existing dirt roads, sewer line easements, as well as areas that were formerly
used for logging decks. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac was conducted by Mr. 'Tom
Barrett and Mr. Scott Hunt, PE within the project study area on May 2, 2006 for approximately 8
man-hours.
NCNHP maps were reviewed on June 14, 2006 to determine if any protected species have been
identified at or near the project study area. This map review confirmed that no populations of
Michaux's sumac are known to occur within a two-mile radius of the project site. Proposed project
construction will not iinpact this species.
CONCLUSIONS
Mulkey conducted a survey for federally protected threatened and endangered species during May
2006 on the "Aardvark" property in Holly Springs, Wake County, North Carolina. The subject
property consists primarily of mixed pine/hardwood forest with several well-maintained dirt roads.
During the protected species investigation, suitable habitat was only observed for Michaux's sumac
(Rhus mic%auxiz). Michaux's sumac grows on rocky upland areas that receive full sunlight and
contain little vegetative competition. Suitable habitat exists within the subject property at areas
along the existing dirt roads throughout the subject property, especially at former logging deck
locations. A plant by plant survey was conducted for Michaux's sumac within the subject property;
however, no individuals were found.
REFERENCES
Moser, G. Andrew. 1993. "Recovery Plan for Dwarf Wedgemussel (A/asmidonta heterodon)." United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis Field Office. Annapolis, Maryland.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, & C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (The Red Book), Region 4. Department of the Interior, Division
of Endangered Species.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1993. Recovery Plan for Michaux's suamc (Rhtr.r
michalvxh). Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 35pp.
United States Department of the Interior. 1999. Proposed Rule to remove the bald eagle u1 the
Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Federal Register 50
CPR Part 17, July 6, 1999. Washington, D.C.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 1 i C 1 P,('?? rrCC? rc?? Ut`Ll~ F Date: Z D?
Applicant/Owner: U .? A o
County: In ve
Investigator(s): State: Notch Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Coll nrnunity ID: 1'VC ` /'t"nd r S
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes HN Transect ID: w fl
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: IVA c.-.
(If needed, explain oil reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species

ra u
Stm

Indicator

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Itlli!Cttt4l
1. JUIICUS egy.,5Vr? ?
" 9.
?, t?C.hi?+Cr?e (?{J*_,-`r;a er 1
?
f ACV4 ltl.
3. . aA?>C t1rG? •? t ?f' ?iL 11.
4. L A`1 {'' 0 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
$• 16.
Percent of Durninant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Phologiaphs
/ Other
V -No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
77Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
Drift Lines
ediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N (in.) ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

0 _ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) -Local Soil Survey Data

D
h
S
d S
il _FAC-Neutrul Test
ept
to
aturate
o
: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) YV ti £ J? CA 411-n .5r- 1 C? a (t `
Drainage Class: I- 6 o r L
j
'
r Field Obsmations
N
? Y
d T
Taxonomy (Subgroup) 1 k r
? `C- n cJ p a V U o
es
ype
Confirm Mappe
Profile Descd t" ion:
Depth'
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) chesl Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 A /0YA c? t? ? ? (t9 ? ?Glt../ ?0L?!t'1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
H i stosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National I lydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chrom a Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Q ?i ! ? J 1" 00 ., ? !_ ? ?. `a t •?' i
WF.TT.AND DRTERNITNATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? l ' ) No
(
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Weiland? l Yes ? No
Remarks:
A.,--4 t- WAIN A 'P, 1102
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: -PY-U*1 6(":+ An y-A VO-T k Date: (" Z n6

Applicant/Owner: U /1
~
County: _
Investigator(s): '-r, (w 'r a 1 .4 6. A ? 11 State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No CommunityID: '•??-?'`?' "`
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes H Transect ID: •
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes N. Plot ID: t l 0Cl- %"f
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETA'T'ION
Dominant Plant Snccie.S Stratum In is t Dominant Plant Species Stratum In i u i?

2. 10.
3. Ti?t,n?f FPICU It.
F?)- .
SC,. ? •1 l? ?? r, ll r
5. C C" e, o r o :5h r tl r` lq'C I'V 13.
6. Loo r,`' *t; l)iil< C 14.

7 U e, v:rf")
1) -J _
.
f% )'--
( 11
. , Ct. 15.
8. Are, 1 - ? ;
1(i
.
Percent or Dominant Species that are OBL, FACT,', or FAC (excluding FAC-).
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology htdicutors:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks,
Drift Lines
_
_Sudinlent Depps[ls
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands

I _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: rV
AL (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Wntcr-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: t! A- (in.) _ Local Suit Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ZA
(in.) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No (' 6VldU ; IVi4i'O k (. t r`
cnr>r _c

Ma Unit Name i
(Series and Phase) t i r
Drainage Class: ?' try' t

1 Field observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) T,
-i --"-- Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon unroll ois0 (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
O- S I6YA• 513 ??'1?4 1vrv?
??
`
S- !2 ?? IoYI? 5 tir::t,a ??{ f u RYy
'L
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol -Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Ayuic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
__
-Reducing Conditions
C
l
Ch Listed on National Hydric Soils last
Other (Explain in Remarks)
o
ors
romn
_Gleyed or Low-
Remarks:
f
WITTT ATVnnr.TFUX41rNATTC)N
llydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No)

Hydric Soils Present? ^s
Yes No?
Is this Sampling Point Within a NVctland? Yes No 1
Remarks:
A n-nve by R I1SAC _
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ptro')exi /" aT-(A yo-) * Date: ?j C)
Applicant/Owner: 'T U -tvi tt County: ? ?.1 k e
investigator(s): I , t.t ' f e. , • ,-? State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community Ill; w z A.h .X 1j
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes FNo Transect ID:
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dom
innnt Plant species Stratum IIndicatp, Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indi a or
??
/ ?
r
o?YJr Tf,r ?
F Ac
.
I.
e(?,r +- , 9.
D
rz? ?: ?<
2. Y r.i'. rttL 10.

3. It.
C
4. .4,
(1
12.
?_bCa
5. b<) N) V? rx 's:r%
,ifV i c V•1 13.

6. L 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >d
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
/ Oilier
_ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology ]ndicalors:
Primary Indicators:
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
r Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

0 Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
ROTT R
Ma Unit Name I? (
?
) f
'
4 C?
e Class:
Draina
t
'
, r1!hrw :°>G •?,r
(Seres and Phase) y -, g
Field Observations
J
F
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Q 1 N
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Moulc Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (N mmuMoistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
t? - toYr ?Z_ i_0a.tit
1+4 010''

2 ? ?')-+ T I0U 411
It, (
'n l0ekm
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol -Concretions
_
_Histic Epipedon +High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Ayuic Moisture Regime -Listed on Deal Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils list
?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WTi TT.A Wn nri TRRT%4TNATf0N
Ilydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Nvetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Ycs No Is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? rYl es No
Remarks:
A.,......,,. o.1r1T SA(^R41g7.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Proju:t/Site: /TG?I Date: ? Z i76
ApplicandOwner: (U -f- HTJ Ix 1
(?_' County:
Investigator(s): ?. t'"r?? State: North Carolina
t7,
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: ti _i, d 1, 4,
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes IN. Transect ID: W 3
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: 11?' ,_ 1,/J
(Ir nerded, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Puminant Plant Species Stratum d' ato

2. ° cGr- Y'i/ it [/t, I t°r' FAc lo.
3. EAc
4, r ? tC U, r}, . c i v.r rA c.- 12.

5. V r{°,t(? r (c/r ?VC ;?? 13.

6. 1.;riotl.r?r)rdn
t1(, A ir(' Y ta. '
l re ?. (gin
1 A C'
14.
7. 15.
8• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species [lint are ORI, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). S
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauae
Aerial Photographs
Other
N/ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
-
-Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more rquired):
Depth of Surface Water: ? J f4 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free VI'atcr in Pi t: (in.) _
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: P A (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
N 6 6 I>v!?v5 ,j

R,nTT R
t
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) a ,
Drainage Class: ?yic
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) V 5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colons
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
D .- 1 A (U Y r G.o a.-,l
P'I/A 3 luau Loam
3 / r3 1 41f ?i {Cx l? l A? /yi

-7 12 5y 61q

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Ilydric Soils List
-
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ----Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WTTT ANnnVTPVTk4TNAT110N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No?

Wetland hlydrology Present?
Yes
N.
Ilydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
A., -e w rN NAC..1= 3192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: rD S t { A a V Ja f ?`
Applicant/O,Ancr: e k b-10",
investigator(s):
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes) Noq
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)'? Yes ("No!
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No

Date: 1
County: 4F•)€ ?'
State:
Community ID: e { eA
TiansectID: vi D
Plot ID: 1N 1a
VEGETATION
Don)i{iant Plant._tiPecies Stratum Indj.cator DominFnlt_13l at)1-5p s rat Indiewor
1. (,.?.e«MuF?,yra fC??4;t f°!r? Y'? G?r?5'G.- 9.

'. v !n•'Vrutit6?
a
3 V- it
. )
i .
4. AC.rr r y S, r?^ ?F c. ?A C- 12.
S. 13.
6. 14.
7. 1 i.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FA(.-). j?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Acrial Photographs
Other
a No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
____11 Inundated
V Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
-Drill Lines
,Sediment Deposits
_
Field Observations: ,
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
I Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Witter: 1Jr' (ill.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Watcr-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Local Soil Survey Data
/ AC-Neutral Test
i
i
R
k
h
l
Depth to Saturated Soil: t? (in.) emar
Ot
er (Exp
s)
a
n
n
Remarks: J1 f t
„ .,t? .
.
t
11?"its
_
%OTT A
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase)
, :L4

O
Drainage Class:
J
r' Field Observations J
\
Y
'T'axonomy (Subgroup)•1 ^ ?' '? f 'f S
G- "' n
es
Confinn Mapped Type?
Profile Dcscri tp ion:
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Tcxhlre, Concretions,
(inches) f j)'.JZOn (p 4guQU MLILM (Mun.._se Moist Abundtalce/Contrnst Structure, etc.
10 y /y (If
?l 1 C ?e 1? d w?

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
H istic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfacc Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on Nntional Hydric Soils List
_
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WTiTT.ANn n i.TP.RMTNATTnN

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetlnnd Hydrology Present? 'es No
? No
d? Y
l
W
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No es
an
et
is this Sampling Point Within a
Remarks:
A nnrnv?A by 1- 7 / _
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETL. ISM DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ) K c? 0,
Applicant/Owner: r I
4 ,
Investigator(s): -; ,,???/, aY& a.._,n
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 11 es J No
Is the site significantly disturbed (At)l)ical Situation)? Yes (No"
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
or needed, explain on reverse)
Date: i -r.u 0
county:
State: f_1z
{
!*t
7
V? i
Community Ill: .,
r
-
Transect ID: 'try )
Plot 1D: VJ
VEGETATION
h
o
minnnt Plant Snecics Stratum Indicat
or Dominant. PIant Species Strah)m Indicato
1. -t
?
Trurvi Svr«•lo. a,. -t?
lrc? '
)
rAlf 9.
FAC U 10.
3. T tr,r t'?1>t4-, Itrf..!" FA c, 11.
I -A r 12.
13.
6. N.
7, 15.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OHL, FACIV, ur FAC (excluding FAG ). a
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Sahnrated in Upper 12 Inches
iWater Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations; -Drainage Pattems in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N 1 H (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Frec Water in Pit: }J (in.) _ Local Soil Surrey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Vj -D
cnrr c
Map Unit Name
? ovw
e Class: Wit
Draina
-
(Series and Phase) fitr-r g
_
y tt Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) i 0. A V Confimt Mapped Typc? Yes 1\0
Profile Descriut m
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
' tchesa Horizon awmeR.Moisi) ("Munsell Moisl) Abundance/Contrast structure, ctc.

/0 /0 Cn>x?rv.?Orl? iYtP.?!c`?h ??q„y..?

Flydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Ilistic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
wv,rr AAnn'nrTvDT1L47TTATif1N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No /
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (('No')

Hydric Soils Present?
Yes t
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Annrore by /92
USACE AID#
DWQ#
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEE'T'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: -16,,1 r, ^ -Abt5 2. Evaluator's name: IJG?vr?^}
3.Date of evaluation: ,? i s1? 4. Time of evaluation:
Y't
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin: 'mot"
(indicate on attached map)

7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order: f e'i?- a'
9. Length of reach evaluated: -, R F 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12, Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): r ?S n
Method location determined (circle): GPS 1'opo Sheet :(2ihP Photo/GiS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation nn nearb is'anihlandmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 1J 0 W
3r7 0 t...
15. Recent weather conditions: S U l? N ?? 7 :a ='
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Su N IJ `(
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad mapcYE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: C? % Residential
% Forested
Sensitive --Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV
Dn point? YES lN0 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? YES NO
% Commercial r.? %, Industrial _% Agricultural
E ' % Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
-._22. Bankfull width: //I2_Ban1:-height-(from bed to top of-bank:):---.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) V Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends V/ Frequent meander --..---...-Very sinuous-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more cbndnuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must ranee between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): W CJ _ Comments:
Evaluator's Signatures -••f'GC:a y-,-, f _rkvA ?J ___ _. __ Date r,'"/ l 10 4
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environ ntai 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 u
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 S
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer= 0• contiguous, wide buffer= max oints _
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 u.
extensive dischar es = 0' no dischar es = max points) /
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 F
. no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent Lloodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 I
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points). -
- 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4----- ----0-2• .. -- -
dee I entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
...- __.-_____-_-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0-4,,--- -. 0-2
no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition = 0' little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A''' 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
.a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max mints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
F (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
- 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 f
f
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints _
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 - -

>oints
no riffles/ripples or ools = 0' well-developed = Max
?'
F 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 ,r
k
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
q 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0.5 ,
no sbadin vegetation = 0• continuous cano = m_ ax points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __0_5_- 0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians -- - 0-4 0-4 0-4
p O; common numerous types = max points)
(no evidence =
22 .
Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0; common numerous types - max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed to coastal streams.
USACE AID##
DWQ#
(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
^ ;_1 t
1. Applicant's name:
3.Uatc of evaluation: ??/ ?f) h
p I?
5. Name of stream:
7. Appmximate drainage area: o • "T ro A". ?
9. Length of reach evaluated: 'LI `7.O C7 L t1
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
2. Evaluator's name: J , '81''k r r C { °h
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin:
8. Stream order.
J
10. County: Wn. L<r:',.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 r1 Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location detennined (circle): Gd2neab Topo Shee?t,? ho Aerial)) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation rl§-0 landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 1, Jo 14 t
?i
15. Recent weather conditions: lit r;t ? -- ? ,
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sty N tJ `(
1.7. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Troul Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NOS if yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?(2.s NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ?YES NO
1-1
21. Estimated watershed land use: /0 % Residential ra % Commercial 1 % Industrial ____%u Agricultural
660 % Forested L'9o Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
--d...22.-Banlfull width: -- ?3.-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank):-.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) ZGentle (2 to 4%) - Moderate (4 to 10%) ___- Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends V Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more`c ritinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6 y _ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intend "fo be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envi on ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United Stales 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. Forrn subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREG ION POINT RANGE: SCORE
t ntain
M
Coastal Piedmon ou
5
0 0-4 0-5 L
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream -
no flow or saturation = 0; strong now = max oints
0
5
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 -
(extensive alteration = 0' no alteration = max points) 0 6 0-4 0 5 I
3 Riparian zone ?
7
(no buffer = 0' conti uous wide buffer = max points)
4
0 ?/
trient or chemical discharges
f
id 0-5 0-4 - `"T
4 nu
ence o
Ev
extensive discharges = 0• no dischar cs = max oints 0 3 0 4 0-4
5 Groundwater discharge
a no discharge = 0• s rin s, secs wetlands, etc. = max points) 0 2
U
of adjacent floodplain
P 0 4 0 4 I
6 resence
no flood lain = 0' extensive flood lain = max points)
0-5
0-4 - -
-----0-2--
? - -
_ 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points) 0 6 0-4 0 2
-. _..--..-Presence of adjacent wetlands -.--
- -
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0
5
0-4
0-3
9 Channel sinuosity -
extensive cbannelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0 5 0 4 0.4
10 Sediment input ?.
(extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points
"
0
5
I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NIA 0-4 - ,
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sixes = max points)
4
0
0-5
-^
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 - ,
dee it incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
5
0
nk failures
b
f 0-5 0-5 -
13 a
major
Presence o
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
0
5
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 - ,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0 5
H
v - 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0 4 '
(substantial impact =U; no evidence = rnax oints
5
0
0-6
16 Presence of riffle-poourrpple-pool complexes 0-3 -
no riffles/ri les or pools= 0• well-developed = max points)
046
0-6
0-6
?t 17 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0
5
0-5
0-5
p lg Canopy coverage over streambed -
w no shading vegetation = 0 continuous canopy = max points) * 4
0
ddedness
mb
t N/A 0 4 -
19 e
e e
Substra
(deeply embedded = O; loose structure = max) 0 5
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 - -.-0.-5.-..--
no evidence = 0' common, numerous types = max otnts
--- -
4
0
0-4
0-4
-
21 Presence of amphibians ....- - ?.

? no evidence = 0• common, numerous types= Max Poi nts
4
0
0-4
0-4
22 Presence of fish -
no evidence = U; conunon numerous t acs = max oints
5
0-5
ildlife use
f U-6 0-
23 w
Evidence o
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 100 100 l00
Tot al Poi nts Possible

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first a e
`These characteristics are not assessed in coastal su
USACI 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: ?D?? ?, ?-? T7?1t?i)YJkr,S
3.Date of evaluation: hzI e,
? f
5. Name of stream: C ' /I?
7. Approximate drainage area: 0' /
9. Length of reach evaluated: / 12 L F
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
f `?
2. Evaluator's name: -a, P) A,,!-
4. Time of evaluation:
6. Ri vcr basin: i s. is r- (: r,a4A.
8. Stream order: 1 oa_5 4- ZJ
10. County: (x_10. ?(/
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312) : _ 3. b 5 1 9 ?fJ 7?j' G, t
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): G To Sheet ' Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note near landmarks mach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 1101,1
o
15. Recent weather conditions: V /,/r;J Y ?,q
16. Site conditions at time of visit: : , Ii r? t-)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Pssential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ;lv 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: / % Residential % Commercial /0 % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested I p % Cleared / Logged _ % Other (_
-,.._22._Bankfull width: --23.-Bank-height _(from bed to top of_bank): _ 2-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) - Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
S 3
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date r, /;,, ?, lb (,
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and em ron ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEE,r
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 j
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 Z
a
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
_
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 /
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
l
i 0
5
0-4
- 0-2
- -
- 7 n access
a
Entrenchment / floodp - f.-
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points
g Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4--- - 0-2
acent wetlands= max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 7
extensive de osition =0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0- large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised= 0• stable bed & banks= max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) _
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
no visible roots = 0- dense roots throughout = max points)
t-, 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
_
y 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F
H 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
?
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints ?
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 .7
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points -J
N
* 4
0 0
4
19 Substrate embeddedness /A - -
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5_. 0-5
"
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 /
p no evidence = 0; common numerous t )es = max points) _
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max Points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACD AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT NVORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: -row", o t C ?7)I ?f Jgr4;,i'- 5 2. Evaluator's name:
3.Date of evaluation: 5/1 164 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: C 6. River basin:
t'
2.
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 0 r a-te-
9. Length of reach evaluated: -- -J-7--o (_ r 10. County: w n-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): v Longitude (ex. -77.556611): f ° ' L
Method location determined (circle): `GPS Topo Sheet :Qrtho (Aeria? Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation n e nearb??'ds and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 1\10 N e-
15. Recent weather conditions: S V ti t.1 y" r :5 -- 6 = `
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N 14
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
lfi. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESNO If yes, estimate the water surface area: _
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survcy? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 6 Flo Residential /d °lo Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
k O % Forested (?7 % Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
---22.-Banlcfull width: : 23.-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank):--
24. Channel slope down center of stream: /Flat (0 to 2%,) Gentle (2 to 4%,) -Moderate (4 to 10%)_ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _-Straight -Occasional bends _Frequent meander ----Very sinuous `-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
64
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature °? "`? Date 51, 1-0 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and eno rental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a prelinunary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSI MET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedlnont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 `7
7
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max oints)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 --
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0.6 0-4 0-5
14
no buffer = 0; conti uous wide buffer = max ts)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 J
extensive discharges = 0, no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 0-4
04 no dischar e = 0; s rin s seas wetlands etc. = max oints
M 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
,
") (no flood plain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
.. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4-------
-2'
entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points
(deeply
_._.___-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0-4-,- -- 0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander= max points)_
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points --
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
y? dee ] incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5
W 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 - '
severe erosion= 0' no erosion, stable banks= max points)
q 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
tC-, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
- 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-develo ed = max points)
6
0 _
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 -
little or no habitat = 0; frequent varied habitats = max points)
M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0.5
x (no shadi n vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
* -
-
4
0
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A 0-4 -
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 _-0=5_ 0-$
no evidence = U; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians --'- 0-4 0-4 0-4 !
1
p (no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points) 4
0 0-4
22 Presence of fish 0-4 - .
0 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0
6
0-5
0-5
23 Evidence of wildlife use -
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points
'tot al Poin ts Possible 100. 100 l00

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first pap
* ! nese CnaraCleT SUCS are rlul nsse SCU 111 waainl au c:n -
USACE AID#
DW Q# _
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(indicate on attached map)
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
y
1. Applicant's name: ?ytiJ 1 0 ?___; r?? ?r -50 +"i:: j5 2, Evaluator's name:`
(-?
3.Date of evaluation: _ t /7- 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: -- NT' 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 1 S 1 _
9. Length of reach evaluated: - 4.0-0-- 1,F 10. County: vif(.L k -
Site #
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 r? S ?? l f Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): , GPS Topo Sheet f ? ho Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearbads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
_ F1 r~ l
15. Recent weather conditions: 5 V to w ?r 1 .5
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N N Y
Gt./
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES tiN If yes, estimate the water surface area:
1.9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ( 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: (b % Residential ° % Commercial 10 % Industrial _% Agricultural
0 % Forested f/ Flo Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( 1
--,._22-Banldull width: 73-Bank.height-(from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%)- Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -z occasional bends ----Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation ut the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more Continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): V/ tD Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date ! 15
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and enkiroruneutal professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
4
0 0-5
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 -
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points) '
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 l1
t
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 /
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) 7
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
? no discharge = 0; springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0 4 0 2 /
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
y- 7 Entrenchment/ floodplain access 0-5 0-4 - - --0-2-
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
___---__-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -- 0- 0-2 i l
t/
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition = 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
(fine _-
12 ,
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)

0.4 13 Presence of major batik failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 , j
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
LO - 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 / j
J
substantial impact =0; no evidence= max points)
16 Presence of rittle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no rifflesh pples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
E~
? 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
F
+ little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Ig Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shadin vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points '
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4 A)
(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 t es = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians ---- .. 0-4 0-4 0-4 ?-?
i
p no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 r t
0 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) t?
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0.5
uo evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 1.00 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These charactensucs are not assessed to coastal streams.
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: r Ll .1 r i {
3 2. Evaluator's name:
s 1 - ?E
1Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: ?? - PER 6. River basin:
2.
1 s -?
7. Approximate drainage area: /G tti? a 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 6 L 10. County: Wo,- c-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude ex. 34.872312: v r • ?? D / a
( ) Longitude (ex. -77.556611): f ? • ? ? ? ?? "r' a^J
Method location determined (circle): GII S i T'opo Sheet 4Qttho fAerialP Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (n-( )TL nearb trft and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N D i'I
15. Recent weather conditions: :a U to w r a - f3
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Tu N toy
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 'NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survcy'. YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: tp % Residential 119 % Commercial 10 % Industrial _% Agricultural
60 % Forested t U % Clcarcd / Logged - % Other ( )
-,._22. Bankfull width:-- -_ _ ?3-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Plat (0 to 2%) _ Gentle (2 to 4%) _-- Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -----Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display ntore-lUi5ntinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6 2 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature - Date r rat d
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envir n ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United Stales Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS _ ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
l Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream -4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max oints 7
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 --
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)-
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 L J
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
U no discharge = 0' s rings sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent tloodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
V) no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
.. 7 Entrenchment /floodplain access 0-5 0-4---•• -..--.0-2
0W (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 ..----Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0-4,-- -- 0-2 O
_
- = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
?o wetlands
9 ,
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
O; natural meander = max oints
extensive channelizatiou =
10 .
Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 /
4
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0-5 3
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
H 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 j /
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max Points
15 Lmpact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 /
T
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) _
1
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 .-
iffles!ri les or ools = 0• well-develo ed = max oints
no r
l7 _
Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
19 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading ve etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5_.- 0-5
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points
0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
p no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)
?4 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 d
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
1 no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
ssible 100 100 100
F
-
SCORE Also enter on first page)
OTAL
r

*These characteriSUCS are not assessed in cuastai sucauis.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: _TDiJ,-; o-- ai ( •? ter, ^? 2. Evaluator's name: k Bc-11 '
3.Date of evaluation: 511106 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: E 7-
7. Approximate drainage area: ©• r? `
9. Length of reach evaluated:
6. River basin:
8. Stream order.
Site #
t s 4-
10. County: \`4 t, k"
I1. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): - Q Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
--------------------
Method location determined (circle): GPS ??Topo Sheet ? ?Ortho (Aerials Photo/GIS Other G1S Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation n to nearb'y?fTuds and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Q
15. Recent weather conditions: V to f.l
16. Site conditions at time of visits Sv N w \/
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: __.___._Section l0 -----.Tidal Waters ___._Essential Fisheries habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21, Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
X22-Bankfull width: ?- 23-Bank-height (from bed to top of-bank):. -
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) -1cntle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) ,_ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight V Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
InstruCtionS for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more-C-6ntinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature - , Date t7
This channel evaluation or-m is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and et ironntental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. 'ro Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIlV T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 ,
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 S^"
extensive a] teration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 , r
no buffer = 0' conti uous wide buffer = Max )pints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
d no discharge = 0• springs, secs wetlands etc. = max points)
?, 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0 4 0 4 0-2
En no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
- -
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 -- __-0-2
a (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
...- .Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0- _ 0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 _
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
O; natural meander = max points)
extensive channelization =
10 .
Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive de osition = 0• little or uo sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5 /
fine homogenous = 0• tare diverse sizes = max mints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,,aa++ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 /
"T
.a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points
F,
to - 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 fl
(substantial im act =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0- well-developed = max points)
H 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max oints
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
'
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __0=5_ 0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points _
'' 21 Presence of amphibians --- - 0-4 0-4 0-4
p no evidence = 0• cotrunor? numerous types = max points)
4
0
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 -
(no evidence = 0. common, numerous types = max mints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
63
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: r
1. Applicant's name: 5,9,.'; 2. Ivaluator's name: rfh Y l c `' `
-1- w;
3.Date of evaluation: f /0 r? 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 1 f N 6 River basin
7. Approximate drainage area:

9. Length of reach evaluated:Q E-
8. Stream order:
10. County: W&-k
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 1 19 • 9 .o JG .3
Method location determined (circle): GPS ` To1eeSh t) rthn Photo/GIS Other GIS Other _
13. Location of reach under evaluation n e nearb tlt9's*?lid landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N0 tl
r- ,2 r-
15. Recent weather conditions: ? V r?' t.l y '75 - 3 = F-
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N IJ
tA-J
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters ---Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES f NO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Dues channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 '
% Residential % Commercial /0 % Industrial % Agricultural
(-0 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
--...22._Bankfull width: -- 13.-Bank-beight (from bed to top of-bank): _-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) z-Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10,7o)_ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream tinder review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 54 ._. Comments:
Evaluator's Signature > _ Date t / p
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environ ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a prelirniuary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this forth is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
•. Coastal Piedmont ?1Iountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
d no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
-
.t 7 Entrenchment /floodplain access 0-5 0-4----- 0-2--
- -
r
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = rnax points)
-g_. -
_--Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4. 0-2 f
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 ,
extensive do osition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
- 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 _A
?
..7 severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max mints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
1-4
-
15
-
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial im act =0; no evidence = max points) -
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = rnax mints
`- 17 Habitat complexiy 0-6 0-6 0-6 ! .
t
F-? little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
19 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy= max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NIA 0-4 0-4
dee l embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 --0.5-.. 0-5
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians ... - - - 0-4 0-4 0-4 t
p no evidence = 0• common, numerous types.= max points)
.4 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
0 no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
t? I
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(indicate on attached map)
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: -y^ ?s
1. Applicant's name: ?ip!?J!; D n27 ?r J„ i" ?5 2. Evaluator's name: f r tJ G1 r Y P P
3.Date of evaluation: _ 5 l I p t!i 4. Time of evaluation:
(Y °~
5. Name of stream: 1 IV 7" 6. River basin: L I
G'
?< t rT c? ,r•.
7. Approximate drainage area: '? a • M r 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: --1-5 o L F 10. County: `?e,- kn
l1. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): _
Latitude (ex. 34.8723) 2): y' J G Q + i V Longitude (ex. -77.556611): P r ?i' `tt W UJ
Method location determined (circle): Pno v Topo Sheet r? •Qrtho (Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation car b 'fS'a'd? and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N 0 b4 ±?
,113 - 8
15. Recent weather conditions: 7 U /.t r j Y . r k
1.6. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N IJ
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _._.____Section 10 -Tidal NVaters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _-----Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES i 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? a NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: / D % Residential l0 % Commercial 10 % industrial _% Agricultural
(00 % Forested 10 % Cleared / Logged _ % Other (
--,._22-Bankfull width: - 23.-Bank -height-(from bed to top of-bank):-.-.
24, Channel slope down center of stream: /Flat (0 to 2%) _ Gentle (2 to 4%) __ Moderate (4 to 10%)_ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight Z -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation, If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more dbntinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
S-0
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
DL I` Date : /r o 4-
This channel evaluation form is intended to he used only as a guide to assist landowners and envy on ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
_ Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
- Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 l
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
?
no buffer = 0- contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive dischar es = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
a no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 0-4 0-2
no flood lain =0; extensive flood lain = max points)
.• 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4-.---- - --0-2
a. (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
g.__. ._ _Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0 0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
3
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
I l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points) _
-- 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
p
, (deeply incised= 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
. 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max points)
Q 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
M
? - 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 l
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-dcvclo ed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 i
(little or no habitat = 0• fre uent, varied habitats = max points)
1 g Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 -.
33
no shadi n vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points) 1
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 _0-5___
0-5

y
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types max oints
>+
0 21 Presence of amphibians -- -. 04 0-4 0-4 .
p (no evidence = 00 common numerous types = max points
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first a e
*These characteristics are not assessed to coastal streams.
5,rpleAAl fir f"`>
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: " Project: g0.r A VOi.r? Latitude: (? t o
o rat
Evaluator: Y./ Site: }-tjoll SQv-j ^55; Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream isarleast intermittent (^'
V2
County:
?? Other ,?

A7? rCX
Q
d N
Ir l? ar ,ere,n,ial i(?n
• e. g.
ua
ame:
.-) I
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= G ?' U ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1`'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
....
77-S-)
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3' 1
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
--- 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 r ` '
7. Braided channel 0 1
? 2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 11 ? 2 3
9,. Natural levees 0 l 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ; 0') 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 r 0.5 ,) 1 1.5-
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 { 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 -
Yes = 3
rvran-mace aacnes are not rates; see aiscussrons in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= ?- Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 3

16. Leaflitter _
1.5 _
'6
_ 0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 A J.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximor hic features resent? No 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = /• lJ ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
O. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 ? 1 0
__
2167 Rooted 'plants in channel 3 "2- 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ('0') 1 2 3
24. Fish i :I 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0
- 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri hhyton 0 ? 1 -2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us
-
' 0.5 1 1.5
Y9
u. Wetland plants in streambed
-- FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75x-01BL=1.5; SAV=2
-- .. ___ -(,,Other=0_")
-.Items zu and z1 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: TI p Project: Aa, VO r>~ Latitude: 0 6t 1"?
Evaluator: Site: 140115prt) S Longitude: ? '„ rJ ,7 r; '°'- h1
Total Points:
Strewn t8!!t least haermittenl ?C? 57 1
County: wA.KC' Other RX
e.g. Quad Name:
!f a 9 or VCIIWnf rf X30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= M-0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortincgui 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9". Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts 0 s.1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina ewa 0 0.5 ?1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ---
(`yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 {
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris u 0
__..... ...... ._---- 0.5 1 1.
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = H. 0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21-?Roated plants in channel
_._..... _._....
..:.__ 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 - 0.5 1 _ 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0.5 1 1.5
296. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW-OiherQ,LL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other- ,.r
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presenco o aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: <o 1 /?? Project: ,?,? lr Latitude: -z?,
Evaluator: rc..! ! Site: 1.1 Longitude: a G ?7`? °l{f
Total Points: Other
Strennt is at least intermittent -
,
' County: e. / ° f'r 1'.
g. Quad Name:
If ?l9 or wremtial if
-,?0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = l?? ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 . Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 : 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 1 " 2 3
93. Natural levees _ 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
_
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 -5 _ 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented

evidence.
No = 0
'Yes =3
,
Man-made, ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal = (/G'7 r 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 1 0 0.5 1 5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
i0-6. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 _ 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 _ 2 3
24. Fish _ CV 0. 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 _ 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae: eri h ton 0 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacterialfungus _ 0 0.5 1 1.5
and plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW- QBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence-ST-aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
1XII r-
5T?E AM
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: AaAt/q,r - Latitude: ?? a a L 0 0 0
1N
1
Evaluator: P. Site_ Holl
50''j5: Longitude: -7';?;_ 7 1>>
y
Total Points:
iut
itt
d
s
i
(
('County: W4- Other A?
erm
el
s at
en
/
Stre nt
" e. g. Quad Name:
rr ZY9 or eren,dal ff moo
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= r?. Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1', Continuous bed and bank 0 I 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 , 3-
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 _ 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits.- ....................... __._......__......... 0 1 2 3
93. Natural levees
1
2
10. Headcuts - 1 w 2 3
11. Grade controls .. ..........._._0.-....._ 5, 1 1,
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes= 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 10 f Absent Weak Moderate strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
-
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5"
C. Biology Subtotal = I ID " Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25, Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 0 0.5 1 1.5
FAC=0.5; FAC ; Q_BL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date:
V -2.
Project: Aq rd VGtr,-
Latitude:
Evaluator: 7 , .ty r? Site: Holly Sp-It) 5 Longitude: 7i.2?.
Total Points:
Stream is at least Gttermilteat
Z
??
County:
? C Other

e.g. C?ciad Name: APEX
•
If ?9 ar eremtial if =30
A. Geomor hology Subtotal = 10 • 5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle- Pool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 t' 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel _ _ 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9d. Natural levees L.0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0, 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 -r
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 `?
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
R Hvrtrnlnnv (Suhtntnl = ..37. O 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs, since rain, or
Water in channel - dry o?qrowing season
16. Leaflitter
17. Sediment on plants or debris
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent?
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
0 1 2 3
0 {?1 2 3
1.5 1 (0.5 0
0 7( 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 _....-? 1.5
No = 0 Yes= 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2' 1 0
22. Crayfish _
t D 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves t" 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0, _ 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0.5
#K: 1 1.5
27.. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW 0.7-5; OB.?=1.5; SAV=2.0;
('Other 0
-.Items zu and z7 tocus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the preserme- -aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
i
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: A0,rAVo rk Latitude: B!, • (,So EN!
Evaluator: Site: Noll SP,^i () S Longitude: -7"3. P,'

Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ? )
County: Y? AKC Other APeX
e.g. Quad Name:
lj a'9 or eremtinl f ?!3D
A. Geornor holo (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity_' 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3'
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel _
N 0 1 2 _ 3 _
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9". Natural levees `0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0. '.____.._. ...__:.,._....____..._. .___ 3
11. Grade controls Q... 0.5 1 1..b
12. Natural valle or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dr_y or growing season _ 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 ' 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or ilesSWrack lines)
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features resent? 0 0.5
No = 0 1.5
es = 1.5"?
C. Biolo (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
..
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel , 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves `0 _ -- 1 - 2 - 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 Q 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 (0.V 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0? 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= ,7 ' BI-=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
b .Items and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presbnce-e'aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
srRC- Am C- /N7-
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ? t 0 (? Project: /-iGt.r vav-ic. Latitude: ??!? ,
Evaluator: Site: H pI( $p1^j ^ S Longitude: rrr?. ?; 't hJ
;? .
Total Points:
Snrnutis ntleast inlerrninew 2
'
County: WAKC Other
e.g. Quad Name: Aix
1 &9 nr errnninl if
?30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ' 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel f` 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 U 2 3
90. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 ' a 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0_5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. -
No = 0
--?
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal = 0 )
- - - ....... ..... ....... __......_...
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Absent
_ _ ...
0 Weak
_._..._
1 1 Moderate

-2 Strong
_
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 3
16. Leaflitter_ 1.5 1 0. 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris m 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or Iles Wrack lines 0 0.5 (.,1_) 1,5
19. H dric soils (redoximorphic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.
C. Biology Subtotal = 5 . S ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
_...h._......_.
21 . Rooted plants in channel
(13
2
1
0
22. Cra ish i Q:: 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves
........ - - 0 1 2 3
......_
24. Fish
(
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.?)- 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on (0-) 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us . 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FA =0.5; FACW=O 7-5;-0131-=1.5; SAV=2.0;
her=0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the preseMT-OYJquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
STREAM
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: Ao r-Ak/Glr'k Latitude: i n
Evaluator: W v?,-} Site: Holly Spri f) S Longitude: i tr ICE
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ?"]

51
t +
County: Other AG PEX

. g. Quad Name:
it ?O or ere tdal i/ ;i0
A. Geoinor holo (Subtotal= 14 • U )_ Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 CM7
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 C 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 (2) 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0-- C 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches - (0+ 1 2 3
7. Braided channel : 1 __...........?..........__..... _..._--._3_-.
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees P"" Q 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 (2' 3
11. Grade controls 0 0- 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains eway 0 5 1 (1.5 ^
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual. -7- PT4
B Hydrology Subtotal = Absent W k Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or rowing season 0 1 2 ?.?
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on Plants or debris 0 (LO .5,E 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5"
C. Biology Subtotal = (0 . 5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
210. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 D . 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW O,,ZS;-QBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
'.items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item zv focuses on the presence-Or aquauc O1 wCUanu
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
51-REAM (S- - / h,1*7`"
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: _ / _../rr Project: &rAVOLrk
----........._.._..--.._..._......_._ Latitude: (o SO i q ° N
Evaluator: Site: Holll Sp,?i ? S Longitude: 18. 60J3 , q w
Total Points:
5n?m„isarlensri,uerminrnr„
COUnty: 4-
C Other

e.g. Quad Name: aX

A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal= ?? - Absent Weak Moderate Strong
V. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic flood lain _ 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 . Natural levees 0 " 11 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls _0 Q. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
-
Yes - 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B H drology (Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0
__-........ 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 .5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 es = 1.5

C. Biology Subtotal = b • -15 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 Ara
25. Am hibian1 0.5 1 t 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0.5 1
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants In streambed FAC=0.5; FFAACW=0.75 BL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
er=0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
We-T"L&J D -A
WF..TLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: t4eWyafr G TOcJA o IU 5 S County: w4t
Nearest Road: j ?,11e-=f%nr ftrwef 9xtens) Date: 572. b
Welland Area (ac): 0.16 Wetland Width (fry 1v ?o b f
Name of Evaluator(s):
WETLAND LOCATION: ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 112 mile upstream, ups opc or ra iu
on sound or cstusuary, pond or lake
- forestcd!natural vegetation '75- %
won perennial steam agricultural/ urbanized /
%
on intermittent stream _
impervious surface
%
within interstream divide _
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
other
SOILS: DOMINANT VEGETATION:
Soil Series: worshaN, I 5vvttu 5 e -4v5us
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat) 2 &e h rxe:v-ja fu, )hdrlreL
predominantly mineral (non-sandy) 3 gabA n 15re, '
predominantly sandy 4ur)da
HYDRAULIC FACTORS: FLOODING AND WETNESS:
freshwater scmipemianently to pcrmenently flooded or inundated
brackish seasonally flooded or inundated
steep topography v/ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
ditched or channelized no evidence of flooding or surface water
_V total wetland width >- 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
Bottondand Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels
DENT RATING
WATER STORAGE X 4.00 - Z
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION X 4.00 = f
POLLUTANT REMOVAL X 5.00 = Zp
WILDLIFE HABITAT X 2.00 = 6
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT X 4.00 = /2-
RECREATION/EDUCATION X 1.00 = Z_
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE _ 60
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 112 mile upstream, upslopc, or radius.
Kf g; 7"1,AWJ D - _F_;
1VETI,AND RA'CI,NG WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: r Mirk -Tow,, o1" Ho(69pr4,s? County: W.,
Nearest Road: r Sfrev><- Ex n s'ro Date: S 2 to 6
Wetland Area (ac): 6. Wetland Width (fity f o
Name of Evaluator(s): y, Sarre+f
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
t/ on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
V othcrAe4dhL4L1 c1,,.1pzctk-1 k r-tet.
SOILS:
Soil Series: Wor5kat i
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
IIYDRAULIC FACTORS:
V' freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channel ized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
forested/natural vegetation -7 5' %
agricultural/ urbanized 110 %
impervious surface /S- %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
Jwcyt e-Fwsus
3 ha Iou, vs OCCT eh a .s
4 Tk ech/ne°rjg Qty ( "%drufek
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipemranently to pcrnrcncntly flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
WETLAND TYPE;: (select one)*
Botiomland Ilardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other: _
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE_ X 4.00 = ?-
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 2
POLLUTANT REMOVAL 3
WILDLIFE HABITAT Z
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT
RECREATION/EDUCATION
X 4.00 = e
x 5.00 =
X 2.00 =
X 4.00 =
X 1.00 =
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstrea n, upslope, or radius.
w e TL'4/ ) D "D
VI'ETI.AND RATIN(. WOIIKS.14EE'I' (4th VERSION)
Pro ect Name: AIWAV-4- (TIW A -f gv (t "Y6 County: l 4ce,
Nearest Road: /ll ?rtLf cFc.,siwDate: 4 2,1- 06
Wetland Area (ac): d , 3 L \\'etland \Vidth (A): ?_,Y-_ :Zs-
Name of Evaluator(s): "t; 13otr,C {<}
NVETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream vide
V' other /sr.i wr4-j
SOILS:
Soil Series: M" o dO-4% /w ovrc h0-"-.
predominantly organic (rums, muck or pent)
_L predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
IIYDRAULIC FACTORS:
V freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
ADJACENT LAND USE
(within 1/2 mile upstrcan, upslope or radius)
forested./natural vegetation 7S"
agricultural/ urbanized /D %
impervious surface /S_ %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
I ,Sn1 u.t .? a r Gt ?I S
2 9-11AX ron<y„W 1(. lef
1 Arrr r , br?,.
4
FLOODING AND NNIFTNESS:
sernipurnmently to permencutly flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
\YEPI,AND TYPE: (select one)"
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Swamp Forest
Carolina Bat
Pocusin
Pine Savannah
Freshwater Marsh
Bog/Fen
Headwater Forest
Bog Forest
Ephemeral Welland
Other:
* The rating system cannot be applied to snlt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE 2- X 4.00 = 8
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 2 X 4.00 = 8
2 * 10
POLLUTANT RENIOVAL 1 X 5.00 -
WILDLIFE HABITAT .' X 2.00 = t
T
AQUATIC LIFE I IABIT.AT Z X 4.00 -
RECREATION/EDUCATION L X 1.00 =
'FOTA1. WETLAND SCORE = 3 /
" Add one point if in sensitive watershed Lind >10% nonpoint disturbance %\ ithin 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.