20061376 Ver 1_Report_20060926

Prepared for:
NOVARTIS VACCINES & DIAGNOSTICS
USFCC
HOLLY SPRINGS, NORTH CAROLINA
Best Management Pond
Wet Detention Pond
Design Calculations
JACOBS PROJECT NO. 22CO1103
SEPTEMBER 22, 2006
m JACOBS
Submitted by:
Jacobs Group Inc.
Raleigh Operations
111 Corning Road, Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
919-859-5000 919-859-5151 Fax
Jacobs Group Inc.
Cincinnati Operations
1880 Waycross Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45240
513-595-7500 513-595-7860 Fax
E p 2006
DENR _ VVArER QUALITY
WETL#O AND STORMWATER BRANCH
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Monte Matthews
MULKEY
?'X,p ot, - 13?1.0
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Representative
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJECT: Proposed Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Facility Holly Springs,
Wake County, North Carolina
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 288
linear feet of unavoidable impacts to one jurisdictional stream channel (an unnamed
tributary of Utley Creek) and 0.38 acres 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 October 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. After 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
a 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 earthen slope.
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 TRYDN ROAD CARY, NO 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH. NO 27636 PH: 919-851-1912 FAx: [phone] WWW.MULKEYIND.CDM
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 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 1:1 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 107
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 395 linear feet of stream. In addition, 226 linear feet of
intermittent-isolated stream channel and 0.38 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, 395 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.
Monte 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-II), 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 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 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 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.
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.
:;? ,
Harold M. Brady
Staff Scientist
Attachments
PCN and PCN addendum
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
Town of Holly Springs agent authorization letter
Novartis agent authorization letter
NCDWQ Express Review Acceptance
EEP Acceptance
Permit Drawings (00-C-60-99-02, C-JSK-6, C-JSK-8)
Alternative Analysis Drawings
Protected Species Technical Report
Stream and wetland forms
cc: (5 copies w/ stormwater plan and earthen slope engineering design)
Ms. Lia Myott, NCDWQ-Wetlands Unit, Express Review Project Manager
cc: (single copies of submittal)
Ms. Heather Keefer, Town of Holly Springs, Environmental Specialist
Mr. Amer Takieddine, Jacobs, Inc.-Cincinnati, Project Manager
Ms. Deana Dearborn, Novartis, Project Manager
Mr. Vance Holt, Jacobs, Inc.-Raleigh, Senior Engineer
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. &Y-P 6 to _ 3 -7 (If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter Not Appncaoie or NSA .)

1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ® Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ® Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check her Q J;:?, r=
[N
II. Applicant Information U
SEP 2 6 2006
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics -Jerry Hoekwater USFCC proj9 ME QUAI I?TpY
rg rv VI?IM11 wl'
Mailing Address: 4560 Horton Street M/S Z-100 v o 1 11 CR vIwM
Emeryville CA 94608
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: Deana Dearbomgchiron.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Harold Brady, project scientist
Company Affiliation: Mulkey Engineers & Consultants Inc.
Mailing Address: 6750 Tryon Road
Cary NC 27511
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: hbradygmulkeyinc com
Page I of 10
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Novartis USFCC Holly Springs Facility
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics; PIN#
0639928228.
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Holly Springs
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
From US Highway 1 in Raleigh, take NC Highway 55 South toward Holly Springs (take the
bypass) for approximately 4.0 miles. Turn right onto New Hill Rd. and take the first left
(approximately 500 ft.) onto Irving Parkway. Take the first right (approximately 700 ft.)
onto Thomas Mill Rd. Continue until road dead ends. This is the edge of the project area.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35° 39' 03.93" ON 78°51' 53.91" °W
6. Property size (acres):
167 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Unnamed Tributary to Utley Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 10
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The property is currently forested with a sewer line
easement traversing the southern edge of the property. There is a significant network of
maintain dirt access roads with locations of old logging decks throughout. Undeveloped
forest land adioins the subject property to the north, west, and south. The existing Corrgated
Container facility is adjacent to the subject property to the east with a moderate density
industrial park beyond.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Approximately 51.0 acres will be graded for six buildings connected by a spine building.
Standard grading and construction equipment including a On, dump trucks, excavators, and
a crane will be used to grade the land construct the buildings and associated parking, access,
and stormwater control facilities.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To provide industrial facility to produce
vaccines and other pharmaceuticals.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. There have been no previous environmental permits (applied for or
otherwise) associated with the subject property that Novartis, Mulkey Engineers, Jacobs, Inc., or
the Town of Holly Springs has knowledge of. The USACE and NCDWQ have conducted a field
verification meeting concerning the streams and wetlands on the subject property and have seen
the mapping; however, these maps have not been formally signed by the USACE due to internal
issues within the USACE.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
This permit application deals specially with Phase 1 of the Novartis V&D Holly Springs
program-, however, there are two additional phases that could possibly be constructed within the
next ten years if growth in the industry continues. These additional phases are included with this
permit package to demonstrate future potential impacts to jurisdictional waters; however, the
designs for these other phases will likely change as needed or may never occur.
Page 3 of 10
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The existing stream and isolated
stream and wetland will be filled for the access road and parking facilities. Water within this
drainage area will be redirected to either the stormwater detention pond or through a ditch
which will traverse along the toe of the proposed fill slope via a ditch and empty into the
floodplain of the subject stream downstream of the impacts These actions will permanently
impact 107 linear feet of perennial stream channel 181 linear feet of intermittent-important
stream channel 226 linear feet of intermittent-isolated stream channel and 0.38 acres of
isolated wetlands.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact Type of Wetland

(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

1
Fill
Isolated forested headwater
No Adjacent to
isolated
stream
0.38

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.38
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.96 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
Page 4 of 10
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Intermittent. Perennial Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
2 UT to Utley Creek Fill Intermittent - Isolated 3 feet 226
3 UT to Utley Creek Fill Intermittent 3 feet 181
4 UT to Utley Creek Fill Perennial 4 feet 107

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 288 linear
feet (non-
isolated
stream)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6
List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project
Stream Impact (acres):
Wetland Impact (acres): Isolated 0.38
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres): Isolated 0.38
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 288
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ® Yes ? No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Page 5 of 10
The USACE has determined that the wetlands that areproposed to be impacted (Wetland
WD - located immediately north of the end of the UT to Utley Creek) are isolated due to a
significant break in the intermittent channel in which nearly all characteristics of the stream
channel are lost Due to the intermittent nature of the isolated stream it is not currently
regulated by the USACE or NCDWQ However, the isolated wetland immediately above the
nick point of the isolated stream is regulated by NCDWQ. The isolated headwater forested
wetland comprises approximately 0.38 acre and is planned to be filled entirely for
construction of parking areas and an access road Water that would have entered this stream
and wetland will by conveyed through both stormwater pipes to a wet-detention pond and
through a drainage ditch located near the toe of the proposed constructed fill slope emptying
into the UT to Utley Creek downstream of the proposed impacts
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ® uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): The wet-detention pond will be excavated near the
southwestern corner of the proposed facility and will use to collect and treat stormwater
runoff prior to entering any streams or wetland areas
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): State stormwater requirements
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: undeveloped forested land
Size of watershed draining to pond: 26.2 acres
Expected pond surface area (permanent pool): 18,988 ft2
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The stream and isolated wetland proposed to be impacted can not be completely avoided and
still achieve the goals of the project Design attempts were made to avoid impacts to the stream
by bridging and by use of a concrete retaining wall However, due to the steep nature of the
valley the bridge would need to be approximately 80-feet long which would not leave enough
space for the all of the proposed buildings Use of a concrete retaining wall was considered, but
was determined to provide only minimal (10 to 15 ft.) benefit in avoiding stream impacts. It was
decided that the best and safest option would be to construct a standard wrapped face earthen
slope with a 2.1 tiered slope Engineered design drawings are included with this permit package.
Impacts to the stream have been minimized by locating the proposed facility as far north on
the property as possible without impacting the perennial stream (Stream SA) or its associated
floodplain located near the northern property boundary. Impacts to the perennial stream (Stream
Page 6 of 10
SD) have been further minimized by adjustment of the proposed access road. This adjustment
involved curving the proposed roadway at the location of the stream crossing.
A draft of this proposal has been previously presented to the USACE and NCDWQ during
initial project discussions
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrphndex.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Page 7 of 10
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 395 linear feet (107 linear ft. g 2:1
ratio and 181 linear ft. g 1:1 ratio).
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement program (NCEEP has agreed to accept this
project into its in-lieu fee compensatory mitigation program. Payment will be made to the
EEP for all of the required compensatory mitigation including 107 linear feet of perennial
stream channel at a 2:1 ratio and 181 linear feet of intermittent stream channel at a 1:1 ratio.
The acceptance letter from NCEEP is attached.
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Page 8 of 10
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. This proposed project is not located within
a river basin that requires basinwide NCDWQ stream buffers.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
There is currently no impervious surface within the proposed Novartis site. The estimated
impervious surface that will be generated as a result of this project is 14.3 acres of the 51.0 acres
that will be cleared and graded Stormwater runoff will be collected via curb and gutter or other
stormwater drain devices and will all be conveyed to a stormwater retention pond approximately
one acre in size located near the southwest corner of the proposed facility. The attached
stormwater management plan follows the NCDWQ guidelines. No direct discharges into
streams will result from the proposed design
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater moduced by the proposed facility will all be collected and conveyed off-site via
the Town of Holly Springs managed sanitary sewer system. Any chemical byproducts produced
during the manufacturing process (including fire water) will be processed and treated prior to
entering the sanitM sewer.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 10
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This project will currently involve the construction of six buildings with a seventh building
acting as a connector to the other six. Access to the facility will be from Thomas Mill Road. For
this project Thomas Mill Road will require upgr?g which will involve paving and widening to
a two-lane facility, and will end at the front entrance of the facility. All potential wetland and
stream impacts associated with Thomas Mill Road have been avoided, and is being constructed
by the Town of Holly Springs and is therefore been considered a separate project.
Future development of the Novartis property will be conducted to the west of the proposed
Phase 1 facilily. This growth will be limited to only two more additional phases, all associated
with Novartis' Vaccines and Diagnostics program. No additional perennial of intermittent-
important stream channel impacts are anticipated and the anticipated wetland impacts would be
minor (keeping within the thresholds of a Nationwide Permit). Thomas Mill Road has been
proposed to provide access to these additional facilities-, however, this will be the extent of the
road There is no planned road spur, cul-de-sac or dead end to provide for potential
development to the north south or west of the subject property. In addition, much of the
adjacent land is owned by Progress Energy (associated with the Sharon-Harris facility) and there
is therefore there is no anticipation for development within this adjacent property. If any of the
adjacent properties were to be developed those facilities would be required to generate their own
separate access roads. All stormwater for Phase 1 and the potential future phases of the Novartis
campus will be collected and conveyed to stormwater retention ponds and treated before being
released into jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Given all of this information this proposed project should not cause any reasonably
anticipated future impacts to water quality in North Carolina.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
A draft of this proposal was presented at meetings during the week of July 14 2006, with
avoidance and minimization comments attempted and where workable integrated. The requested
NWP 39 deals specifically with the 288 linear feet of stream impacts. The requested isolated
waters permit deals specifically with the 0.38 acre of isolated wetland impacts.
tis??rl? 9 Z? /Z? 6
Applicant/Agent's Signature . Dafe
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
•
r
Ii\ ?iJ',' ;J ? ;,?r jr' t ? \' ? `• Ia?'1 r .-{, _ f r r/--?.? ? -? .??' ''' /, e ?-,•?
''? r ;iFt? /,!.•i j. ? i . (r d ?. 7 ? / r r?l ,t ?d i' ! ?/ y1,?'r ? . ' ',? ? ? Jt '?. ?.1 }f . }' •1 . '? , ? . +? . -
\•,
1{ . it ,J? ., l\
1 „i! ?F -? - ,. ? p-J? J; i ?? n %' ? 'lli9i ? - i ?' :/ r , r - ?
f. P
?: / :'? 11 ^V • •1( ?" J_ •,?•. 1, L;- tai J / / I ,? r : .:' • - y. I.
1+
1 1 ? ?{. ??f ?'. iiI •\`?t1' ? '? i ? ?1r +?'ri - `"?. \ i': ? t - a? }ef! ?,
4I'
i Iir? c s,/ i..-..;e '?`?'!•k + 1 :f, f•' r ? _.- - ? - .'? i. f. 't? _ - '/'
,
J
1 ' / _ \? pr" '/._?G,.'I `- ;.! vv Ctmi -. 1' 'l 1 ' / r 1. P• '.? .'/- i -`v `1•
?' 1' •`• ?.r ??ti.i? •ti}I? ,'! ,?r? 5 li ', t•• J, ?1 yam. {/'' .•a 7 - r?
chr, p
l ,
1 ! •I ?/ J ,V' - _ ?r _
'% ?? r 4.,? ? •? f ' ?aaa. ,ia^''? ?` ?_. i,, :' / / / J _ t.3,. _ -Iq S. ?{ d /`?1 ? - t"
Project Aardvark
/ 1
^Y?I,` i '?'?'J (' ? ;? e,+t l?Ir1 ;i / C, \.n ^? `a i -.- __-_ +J-_1?'t•r•-. _ ?.?j.}+, ..
v
pp .,
---- 1) l\?I\`15%4 I1. 'i _ ..:\. l['i' J - X76 I` y .n?• ,° f 1+,
l `Ir;! t? l ` ' + ''/e?=x 1? > a J I I,I y"1 '? +`J n •?.• •"\? "
+ L.
` } / tC•J ? A
i - YI l I [? t s_ ?iLI \ I'? , 'rf5 1 i??R t=om, -/' ?-:??7-/ c'?. - ? I ?._ •.?? _i
I __??l : ll ri, I{ ( J(I a ?? )r. VV ta. , ti• •T• ??1
V
/
icy t f! ./ \ i' V f ?' - f •4 oily S1rL'E
_g'.?. I \. /f ice, \` /?/ r I ?1?'.?/•?;l r - L ° _ J' ~ •f. (1 '
? OI', \ .i^' J ?i l : 1 f `'i r , is - r ; ` .' ?; ,! i' - ? - - i • _?5 ?, ? - I I e - ;i . ? ?? ? -
Q n _ ',\ i !y1 1,t '-\ /.l, (?„`?n/ .?•,I ii/'?tl? __ , .IJ .%? '?1 ?,yy_'?. C° y?? ,.,?/\ ? _
yf , ?, 1 R ?t At. J Ih
':?" 30. ? , I \ ?_?Y ? ? . 5 \1 'k\` '!r -% r II,..Q r t v?'' - 1• - ??+ r 1 ,a •.r
O' ( (? a1 I, .r t, '! ?L?. 1 ?' + ;7/l/l: '.•. mCtaT.-' r
?? ? l 1!? A ?// r '? ,.13 - v 5 / ??i?/ 4' S?J 1 v ?\?`. i t ? r? /. _ •'?/ ??? t' __
71
13
milli, za ./??=\`•\`I J?1 / \.. ilfj ?r?/•y?i?li: ?•r ?i.i." -?/Mv`'+r sza .1 '?: +?? - - - ---'-
?_ f f ?•• \^?, `/ r cY 1t,• P,?., ^ 1 fr tl- .` ( f?( 1 \ts '?' \.? i +i ` .'"z . ,••,? \I' r,
y \ , J \\
1 _
\1 1 J 1?'! I `i ???,?i 1 1 ; /?" ^ / I r' r??. .?? 1 !!. `Rl \ \ •1 - 1 _ 0 1 i . ?Q -_ S - _ - T ?i 1
?'`./ i j.7 G i ? \ ?+`..\ ? ?? !'\r ?_.?• \.`" 1 .,r?l ?.(? \ \. rl-'^/ l , A ; , d '-:1 T ,•y _
r
0' iti,! ap:• J ? l ? ..,i'' ''?/.. ,I,1ti,!? Q \? .I'.\'\?• p??':. /, o i t v _ ,'? •. ,? ;i+• r ??. _ _ /, _ :G?' _
r
?,? aR•i slJ ?`\ _ "`'?.l , ter?. j.\ .\ i 1, \ +?,1 L// i??r ' "` I.? \tr ?- /?f y 1
;y! r1 ,1 . •. ?` ? // ? /???x `.-, '?\ I L JI ?f'?..j' i ! 1 __ oo ?.: ' y? \ ?/:-1.?- _ r, .
i ??JJIt• '?\ , 1. ` r ? t'. f 1 ,'' ? _?• ' , ?' ///r ?J \ I ?; .,/ , _ , _ . $11? ? _ l!H \ 3 ''?,( ,
' ?. .1 I ' ? 1 a ?--?J J/r r. + 1 tom'; ? 5 3? - A i' VLJ ?--
??' I ?\ `-v^?\,C?=iii 7 / ?.r ?-'"' 'i" ?? .+/ /' I I ` "/ - - _ _ o - ° I e•0 / I- 0 - ??
r 1Jl 1? -_ '• 4:, ,a ? 1^ j ? ? ? '"?7i _`i.i? ?? 1 ?? 3? -?, ? I ? i?' ,?i?? `I '^ ? e r' - - ??"'.. I, 1 .,,' ,•? `?
%
(i, ° ,` . r ,,5 ,'!? ` ` /' ,;l? ` ,mot ' / ` - _O - . ?? ;. M \• 'C:``
1 ,?. ,./'•J,.1'' r? ??'. ,1 ` 1 i , ! , ? /? °? \+ / r/ , i /, r \__ e ? k° T is E ?.B _ ,
1/I ! \ \ t ? {? ilr i ? _. ?;;.., ?r *`--.".,,\y.?`,.wl \? I ? ; i; / ? "? '; Iti??i( - _ ? y?,• ` y ? ' r.>• i ?y i ltl 7 J ??/(
lit
1 1 ! .5
,i/.-.\/'".\ 1 ,ty? \?l"?.1•. ?, \ ,?'^?•,?t c, ?", f .
\?/ryAJ! f J / ! . I^ rl _? i `\ .rte/; `( }?IrJ , '{ {A ?l J ` ? \ _ /
.\? / / i .'/ /•"'-., i ; ?/1:? n / \\ ,nw?' ? ?,? - ?'`? \. j;i5 '{ _ •p o . ,I --v '`' j\ 1',i)1f
'N j. i e J `?, 1 1 Y % Sat `" r' 9
\\ \•. ?^ ?•?1'ir 3/ ??'"-.?•f/' ayf J;'Y ,?±'?,,?, \.• ,/?, ?, lll6 r•? I - ,
',?'• ? - ,?? Cem BM,• ?'? i.
Prepared For: N 1 Inch equals 2,000 feet 1:24,000
VICINITY MAP Figure
TICTOWN OF Project Aardvark 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Feet
MULKEY Hollt y Town of Holly Springs source: Maptech Terrain Navigator Pro Version 7.01
ENGINEERS & CGNSULTANTS Springs
NORTH CAROLINA Wake County, North Carolina USGS Topographic Quads - New Hill and Apex

MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
Prepared For:
THE TOWN OF
H011y
Springs
NORTH CAROLINA

t
R
STREAM AND WETLANDS
Project Aardvark
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
Prepared: June 30, 2006
N 1 inch equals 400 feet 1:4,800
0 400 800 1,200 Figure
Feet
Source: Maptech Terrain Navigator Pro Version 7.01 2
Apex SW - 2002
Legend
Perennial Streams (5,694 LF)
Intermittent Important Streams (1,198 LF)
Intermittent Unimportant Streams (1,386 LF)
Isolated Streams (226 LF)
Wetlands (0.57 Ac)
C Isolated Wetlands (0.38 Ac)
Q Aardvark Corridor
Parcels
Pipes
NOTE: Wetland' WC" and the portion of Stream
"SG" associated with Wetland ' WC" have been
previously verified by state and federal agencies.
-A!
ENSINEERS S CONSULTANTS
Prepared For:
THE TOWN OF
Holly
Springs
NORTH CAROLINA
STREAM AND WETLANDS
Project Aardvark
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
Prepared: June 30, 2006
N 1 inch equals 400 feet 1:41800
0 400 800 1,200
Feet
Source: Maptech Terrain Navigator Pro Version 7.01
Apex SW - 2002
Figure
2A
- v 11 7?1
. MyC x Mkcti au
I?,?,,1 f' I1
MYD fE MyD \. '
-i- WY MYD ?Y?JI
My82 ` -" j• f cp y°
Wh 1 CP Au f MYC 0 \ \
?k1YOr, WY Y
Y
MyB2 f f I rlgC MvC M 6 \\hl
Wy MSG M¢C2 ` MB02 w \ Wy y ••
AfA /oo ?? / ?? M(E MYD C'
Au ` MYC f. rn?
IMyD T % ?\
ooMYS
Cm MY L)
MYC YD
r) y
a° ?y& 1 yD MY rvigC '\ \
A. ` yP f MYC g
MYD,.
I ? MYD ' MfE
f M YD °o? MB82 d ` \
/ MYC WE a° MYC MYD MYD ?1-c
MgC I *ml `\ tt1?2
MYC Y ¢? MgC
°
l Cm My5 \ M M 2 r? M
MYC . HC %8.
'-? l I oa MYB MYC A
I' ,° - MgC Nf .
?•? 1 ? :, v f?
WY My8
\.? MvD 1 6u
' o ' hlyC;t MgC ?+L v
+C v? +
Fab
Mt
G?? e MyD . ° : f i
s J "` o " MYD X11 c' , n ' li C2 WY g ?1
yD M MFC2 ? - / °? . HC2 I r. , c ! MBC ` Z ?'W , WY
Mgc 1? • • „ ?a ?
, _' My6 MyD q°ry ° ' LJ?? SITE 7?sr MfE, ?t „ do-
R.. LOCATION
M ez Mtbz r`4yo
fi MBC2 i / M \ x
/ YB t h l 1 MBC2 bL
MYD
Y
MYC MYB MYD ql' °'? \
MY( L D /
t M
M ( .
D MgG
f
MyC o a ' WY e
eo MyD MyCo,° f 3 ' C] ' all. yn
f s??p `r C n W Y' ` I a I
MY©2 myCl MgC N arc
O I / 4i M¢82 Q/ Q( eV MgC
r ?' \ O' ! d i :+'?' ??1 ? ?s^1`t f1•?gf3'. •Sry +??`:s k
?? d • a ? v r,vM?C W °`? MYC W ..f.'?.`.. '? ... UI? .?'?•?;°,?
tr MYC y- - v. kF r'kFw - ?•.
1W, I ?cpAy?.... )- MY 1 MYD
Q _ 1 ,i 4'G'I
/i "O• /MYC MYC QH M MYC ?Q Ci ., FIcF
V t,.
/. ( ` 2 P? MYB JP PkF
Cp ,•
?I My8 AfA ,r,--.. Y AfA ? CP 'PkC, PkF
Au
CPI PkC
MYC PkF P
kF
Pk Aj PkF rC ae./\ _
Cp
Wake County Soil Survey Map
* 1M M U L K E Y Novartis V& D Holly Springs site Figure No.
F_ N G I N E E R S & C O N S U LTA NT S Wake County, North Carolina
,:,5.840 4
Feet
0 .500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
I
Wake County Soil Survey, 1970
Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.
4560 Horton Street
Emeryville, California 94608-2916
\I N O VA 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
.i un.
THE TOWN OF
--dolly!
Springs
P.O. an,: 8
128 S. Plain Street
I loll) Springs, N.C 27540
-m, hol Iv sp r i ngsnc. u s
[phone]
Fax (919) i52-5569
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,
St
4l k)S'Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
cc: Heather V. Keefer, CFM, Environmental Specialist
Project File
Correspondence # 50283
Mayor's Off cc Fax:
[phone]
AUG-25-2006 17:2e FROM:DWO-WETLANDS 9197336893
0??Ar?R?G
August 25, 2006
EXPRESS REVIEW ACCEPTANCE LETTER
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics
Attn: Ms. Deanna Dearborn
4560 Horton Street, M/S Z-100
Emcryville, CA 94608
Dcar Ms. Dearborn:
Project Name: Novartis V&D Holly Springs, North Calroliuaa. Site
Wake County
On. Au,Pu,?t 25, 2006, the 401 Oversight/Express Permitting 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], trade
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
http://lt2o.enr,state.ne.us/newetiandEla,ppadd5.pd f7;
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
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Tito clock for this project will not start until receipt of the completed application package and required fee are
received. If the impacts are greater than indicated on the Initial hiterest Form and/or the services are different,
you. may be required to remit an additional fee.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters further please do not hesitate to call Ms.. Lia Myott at
919-733-9502 or. Dr. Cynthia Van Der Wicle at 919-715-3473.
Sincerely,
?. U'?4 da?XeL WAA
C.yndr Karoly, Manager
401/Express Review Oversite Unit
CBK/cvdw
cc: File copy
401 Overslghl ! Express Review PermtlGng Unit
1650 Mail Service Conter, Ralabli, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree 9oulevard. Sidle 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27664
Phone: [phone] FAX 919-73$489a ! Internet litrn:!7h2n.cnr_a rg,???,us/ncwedands
TO:ge511918 P:2/2
Michael F. Easley, Cinwrnor
William G. Moss Jr., Secretary
Nurlh Carolina Department of Envimnmcm and Natui'a.l Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
NobuthC:uo na
rrlrlratFl?
An Equal OpionunliylAitlrmative Action Employer -54% Recycled11096 Post Consurner Paper
08-21-'06 13:09 FR011-DENR EEP 9197152001 T-143 P02 U-681
'em
cht
Oen
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 proj ect impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NC EE.P 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
Cataloging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (S4 ?-)
lu arian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool 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, USACE-Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ-Raleigh
File
R rmg... r '.. Pro" oar Jm&

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

o ? ? 1.006

d e a ?
e?
,o
e
t`%

0
ea
r ,r
1
-
Y I ?_
I

L Y

;IRO,tECT AAROVA K; U.S. FIuCC FACILITY WETLANDS STUDY - ALT 1
?J
J
r
N
14 JULY 06
SCALE =1:300
0 ?, nIIi nTic
e ?
o '
' F \
GQ
A
14
4
D
0 0
i
9
° a e
a e
a
JAMM

1

JACOBS
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 (T)
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 approximately 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) maps 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 1-laliaeelus leucorephalus Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alamidonla helerodon Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus nlichauxii Endangered
RESULTS
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for dchsting)
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 impact 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 (F'ormespint) 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 runivng 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 arc 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 specunens. 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 michauxir)
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 terrninal, 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 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.
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 impact 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
(Rhos miclyau.vii). 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 (Ala.rmidonta 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. Recovciy Plan for Michaux's suainc (W)us
michauxiz). Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 35pp.
United States Department of the Interior. 1999. Proposed Rule to remove the bald eagle in the
Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Federal Register 50
CFR Part 17, July 6, 1999. Washington, D.C.
DATA FORM
ROU'T'INE; WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: A G1 T-J V('01 k,
Applicant/Owner: .j u T' I • p -
Investigator(s):
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes HN
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Un

Date: Z o 6
County: wince
State: North Carolina
Community ID: ?'1?f. f 1 rt ?t f? A.
Transect ID:
Plot ID: I VA 2L
VEGETATION
Do
m
inapt Plant $Fc
6es
Str a un
Indicator
Dnninant Plant Species Stratum Jndi tux
1. r
r
-
Jllt?cu5 e. VSVr? T X51' , `LVJ 9.
2. P OC. I" i?3(Y tCs ( 141 " ', FAc vi 10.

3. P
•.aC1 ?> t1? ?Vr
t {{
i,ik ??
It.
4. Co' i 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL„ FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photogiaphs
/ Other
V_ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
1/7Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
ediment Deposits
Field Observations: ?rainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Dept] of Surface Water: N (in.) l' Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data

A
D
h
S
d
i FAC-Neutral Test
ept
to
aturate
So
l:
(in.) `Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
W111 C
Map Unit Name 1?' J
(Series and Phase) r2 (A4
Drainage Class: ©? r
44 Field Observations
R
Taxonomy (Subgroup) + >O `G L- n I0 A U U I N,
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Des.gdp?=
Depth' Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munse1l Mnist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
n 3 /-? 10yi E; (ft? gloat t o01VI
3- /2 13 .5? loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
H i stosol ^ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Cunlent in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfrdic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_Ayuic Moisture Regirne _Listex) on I..ocal Hydric Sails List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Ilydric Suils List
-
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: C,
W1RTT.ANTI nri.W..RARiNATION
Y
est No
Llydrophylic Vegetation Present? ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? 6y es No

Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? l Yes/ 1 No
J
Remarks:
A.,..«. -A h., WrH 'Ar`R 7fp2

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1957 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ? e, c;+ Cop-f,1 1, a r k. Date: I" ? f76
Applicant/Owner: U i /1
' s County:
I'
Investigator(s): I C.LVr?' 4 6,YX State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: t . J'' '
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is this urea a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: t I u Ct, f f ,1
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
12Qminant Plant Species Stratum Uidicalor Dominant Plant Species S ratun Indica of
1. r"a ..: f ct v'1 9.

5 0 5h
h / ?4-C I'V
. r.r? ru 13.
6. 14.

7. 15,

8
A-eer YV?>Y?,.ti
r?C? l .
? ff
16
. .
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
k

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

I _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (
A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Frce Water in Pit: FJ ?" (in.) Lfwal Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: tv ?A (in.) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 0 U > 1V
RnTT R

Ma Unit Name
(Series and Phase) 4 n 6

?•`'

Drainage class:
Field Observations
I
F
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
, N
.
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munseil Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5- Ib yp 5 3 SntldtI, lva,,.,
5' l 2 13 W / ©Y R w ,i d tr j" `? ink

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
l
C
L
Ch Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
o
ors
rome
ow-
_Gleyed or
Remarks: A ko6z,, - 1 * Jr 3vawt

WT TT _e Nn nr.TFRUTNATTON
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes C N Is this Sampling Point Within a \Vctland? Yes N
Reruarks:
A.... - v rr111. AC / _
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 1" tJ'1 „'?{ rC(?l T czi \,?tZ }"
App]icanUOwner: (7 ?.r
Investi;ntor(s):
Do Normal Circumstances exist an the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes HtN4-o
IS this area a potentioJ Problem Area? Ycs (If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: ?- Q
County: e
State: North Carolina
Community Ill: w t i rx u rk ?J
Transect ID:
Plot ID: W'
VEGETATION
Dominnnt Plant Species stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

,
2- f1Ci 10.
+ r
3.
4. rtlr`?`r,s 12.
5. CV, ? ?' ,?v, 'C.r to f C Jl 13.

?' 1:" t?Y'1 to ,-- 14.
7. ] 5.
8. 16.
Percent of Donunant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). > 50
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerinl Photo;raphs
/ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology htdicators:
Primary Indicators:
Y Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift l..Snes
^Sedinamt Deposits
Feld Observations: lr' Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
r- Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
?

0 1Valer-Staincd leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) Lc-al Soil Survcy Data
PAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Rernnrks:
ROTI N
Map Unit Name ((
) r
, [
j
c"
r
h
c? Gx _. J
e Class: 1 Off' V
Draina
r
t
(Sers and Phase)
Nn. .'_
.+? . g
Field Observations
F
I
Taxonomy (Subgroup) l ? cl'' j 0 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
N
.

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
A 10 Yr. 1_0 V" M

2- IZt l0YR.4?(_ /D 3 b -A i s4 i^ . ?06,w%
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
?Histic Epipedon High Organic Ctmtent in Surface Laver 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 IAst
-
?Gleycd or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WR.TT.ANn T)V..TRRNUNATfON
Ilydrophytic Vegetation Present? t Yes No
\Vetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Ycs No Is this Sampling Point 1Vithiu a Wctland? Yes ?, 7 No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: -PCo,)f_c;+ A-ar-A ya r Date: 2 n6
Applicant/Owner: U (r'.'' County: ,A, a e- e, ,j A' 0 H-r)14 Investigator(s): 1e% State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: oqlt; _,-? „_ Ia.??,
t.
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes HNo Transect ID: 13
1s this area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: ?.?c r r 1/\I
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
ninant Plant Species
Doo
i Stratum Indicator Dominant Plan(Specics Stratum Indicato
1. ?
/
(_s1Urr('05 9.

2. t
A t?sY` 1)1,N ?' ?
10.
3. v FA c,
11.

4. ^> t•n ; ? r1 f
1
t

12

5. t
13.
(?hi?fOA
0 CC7
14.
7. 15.
8. 16.

7 9
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC•).
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, bike, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Itches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
.Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more ruluired):
Depth of Surface Water: NIA (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: a°Jt r' l`4 (in.) ^Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Ncutral Test
Dcpth to Saturated Soil: ?t f (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: tt

fi()TT.'?

Map Unit Name

(Series and Phase)
Drainage Class: Ii t

LL (
H Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) t-$
U Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Prorile Description:
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrw;t Structure, etc.
0-! A to t 1- 0aY,I
(-? A InY?? /,;- 010'y Lmm
3-7 f3 -? ! a. 5Y Oak/ loam

Hydric Soil Indicators.
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
iAquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
r Oleyed or Low-Citrom a Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
XUPTY.ANn W TF.RAITNATION
Ilydrophytic Vegetation Prescot? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Ilydric Soils Present? Yes No J Is this Sampling Point Within a 1Vedand? Yes No
Remarks:
e.,.,?.,.,.. ,., IKAf-P 1047
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAN?'D DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
? 1
Project/Site: -t T"fio t r ; ! A, a y :?' Vo. • t
Applicant/Owner:
Tnvest igator(s): ?s.? r:?' f, -• .l
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (?1'es j No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)'? Yes { No)
Is this wren a potential Problem Area? Yes i N
on
] J
G
"
l
Date: f6a f u
I
County: s^J? .G.
State: 1 (.'

Community Ill: J i
e{ I r. ?? k
Transect ID: VJ
Plot 1D: W 'a
VEGETATION
DominnntPlnnt..Species Stratum _Indicator Dominaut.P]antSpeci s Stratum Indicalo

3. vrtia:ia(;a V'Ng. f AA 11.
4. /?Cf' TV rr?n IriG ??+1 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 1 i.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O BL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FA(,- ). jJ
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
-7tSaturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water NUrks
Drill Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: Ij R (in.) Oxidized Root Charnels in Upper 12 Inches
NVatco-Stnined Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: j (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
/
l AC-Neutral Test
k
d (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: Other (Explain in Remar
s)
Remarks:

cnTI.';
Map Unit Name `
??tl s?r.P-•Y`^

(Series and Phase)
?(+-e-??.. ?t)4.: 1""?
P0
'
Drainage Class: 01' -----
?
i Field Observations
o
't'axonomy (Subgroup) I`? G ` d, r, I )v l q'? Confinn Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Descri to ion:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizotl (Munse_LL MLILM (Munsell Moist Abundtmtcc/Contrast Structure, etc.
n-(, fir d y,? L{ ? .?'y cf+? ?da?^
( P, t]/ ! tJ t t? 5??. f,r? 1 t"Jr.r. t l Ur S.s .< V) p et.+..

1lydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sultidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Rcgime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
Gleyed or Low•Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
[[rTT'T A tarn -mm r <'i T?1VITliT A TTnV

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? 'es No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No is this Sampling Point Within a 14rctland? Yes No
Remarks:
Annrnaed hV H) A /9
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
rr r,
Project/Site: ??ft? lir c1' (7. 'r• + r (c._
Applicmit/Owner: UOA ,.1+ ?n j,?. !? yll•,,, <
Investigator(s):
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes / No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explnin on reverse)

Date: t 1
t"- -r.u v
County: (r,.
State:
Community ID:
Trunsect ID:
Plot 1D: 1tJ S
VEGETATION
1)nminant Plant Species r to ndicator
I Dnminunt Plant-Species Stratum Indicator
nn
r C to.
3. Air, 11,
4. L•Vt f, ., ,r + >a.),. I:::., j?CF rl?? * 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7, 15.
S. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that arc OBL, FACIM, or FAC (excluding FAC: ).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gaugc
Aerial Photographs
Other
Y No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drill Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N ! H (in.)
-
- -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
i _ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Witter in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data

/ _ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 1I (in.)
lJ -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 11

VVD
OCnTT Q
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) ?
y trd ?" «? ?'^ WQ?
Drainage Class:
( Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) , i' ?v Glu ?'Pa Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descrinti?n;
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
• i hes) Horizon tM1lImi M(ILIM GAunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
A Kit la y SC?? dQ t f ba-+n..

/0 YR C A3 C p+v+n•! o n/ ,,l0.4 ivWS
C"tin.- rr. ra.-•? ?; ??c ? ??.? r4

[-lydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Ilistic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfrdic 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:
-:m v • wT[A rT.TiPn lkArTrtT A TTnN
VT K JA Jun" IL
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NoI?

Wetland Hydrology Present? rl
Yes ],ro J
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? Yes No
Remarks:
Annrove v /92
USACE AID# DWQ# Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
'e')
6. River basin: st'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: y
n t-r t '< i lJ? V`i t
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: YE'
3.Datc of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
(indicate on attached map)

8. Stream order: Z n a 0 v C?_`l e r
10. County: Wc,_ i
It. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude ex. 34.872312: v -1
( ) Longitude (ex. -77..156611): v-1
% ? • ? ? -'
Method location determined (circle): G13S To po Sheet :Qrthd Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation no e nearb 7t5tttis atiil landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): i?JO I'?y
15. Recent weather conditions: U t? 1J Y 1 : - 6
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SV N 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 (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map YYES; NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
' °lo Forested
un point? YES 1N) If yes, estimate the water surface area: _
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? YE ` NO
P „?
% Commercial -' a ___°_ % Industrial ro p1
_ Agricultural
% 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 2010) V Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (510%)
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 wcagtcr 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 cbntinuity, 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 D _ Comments:
Evaluator's 5ignature? v?•t% Date 1' D
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and en ironmental 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
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max Dints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 ?t-
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0- conti uous wide buffer = max oints E
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-4 0-4 u.
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) /
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0 4 0-4
I
U no discharge = 0. springs, rin s, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent lloodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
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
. 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
extensive deposition = 0' little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of chnnnel 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 points
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 -?
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
H
:n -
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)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 f
k?
little or no habitat = 0• fre vent varied habitats = max . oints
q 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 ?,.
no shadin vegetation= 0; continuous eano - max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
dee 1 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
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) 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 charactensnes 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:
-1 1 t
1. Applicant's name: -Tvwr: o- n ?r S4 "%r
i
3.Datc of evaluation: A
P E? P,
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area: O y 4 rti1 AL'
2. Evaluator's name: j? J3tt, r r C J `f'
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 2-1 '7-0 t7 L F 10. County:

11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal dearces. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): y 5% ?, n Longitude (ex. -77.556611): . "
Method location detennined (circle): GPS t Topo Sheets/ :Qstho (AerialPhoto/GIS Other GIS Other _
13. Location of reach under evaluation no a nearb tl'91559 landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
G l fi
14. Proposed channel work (if any): iJ 0 14 F-
15, Recent weather conditions: a U (`r Ill 7 '
16. Site conditions at time of visit: n) tq ti y
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive __)Vaters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO) If ycs, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map??YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ?? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential 0 % Commercial % Industrial -_-__%u Agricultural
6 D % Forested ?D % Cleared / Logged _ % Other (
--W 22.-Bank-full width: ?3.-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank):-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) Z Geende (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 (56ntinuity, 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):
60
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date U _
This channel evaluation form is intend o be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envi 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. Forin subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREG ION POINT RANq SCORE
t
d untain
A4
Coastal mon
Pie o
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 -
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
4
0
0-5
3 Riparian zone 0-6 - /
7
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
h
di 0-5 0-4 0-4 J !
41
4 arges
sc
Evidence of nutrient or chemical
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) 0 3 0 4 0 4
5 Groundwater discharge
U no dischar e = 0• springs, sees wetlands, etc. = max points) 0 2
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0 4 0-4
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
access
i
l
-
d
/ d
0-5
0-4 .
-"--0-2"'
-
a
n
o
o
p
Entrenchment
dee 1 entrenched = 0- fre pent flooding = max oints 0
6 0-4- - 0 2
__8_ .. - -._-.Presence of adjacent wetlands - -
- (?
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-5 0 4 0 3
9 Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0- natural meander = max points) 0 5 0 4 0 4
10 Sediment input
(extensive de )osition = 0- little or no sediment = max points)
5
0
I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 -
fine Homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
04
0-5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 j
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) 5
0
nk failures
jor b
f 0-5 0-5 -
13 a
ma
Presence o
severe erosion = 0- no erosion, stable banks = max points).
0
5
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 - v
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
H
-
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber prodpction
0-5
0-4
1- r
(substantial impact =U; no evidence = max points)
0
5
0-6
16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes 0-3 -
no riffles/ripples 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)
5
0
q 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 -
no shading ve ctation = 0• continuous canopy = max points) N/A? 0 4 0.4
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0- loose structure = max
4
0
5
0
7
0-5
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) - -
_
_ - }
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
.
_- -

4
0

0-4

0-4
>-4
_ 0 21 Presence of amphibians -" -' -
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max oints 0 4 0.4 0-4
22 Presence of fish
O no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points) 6
U 0-5 0-5
Evidence of wildlife use -
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points) 100 100 100
'T'ot al Poi nts Possible

rrf lmn T of nD . (Alen enter can first Dan)
*These characteristics are not assessed in 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:
r I
)A,A.•y,f'?
1. Applicant's name: Dine'+ o-"J??t r'7es 2, Evaluator's name: 111
3.Date of evaluation: lizI 4. Time ofevaluation:
5. Name of stream: C ' //? 6. River basin: ?• fit,°t+ F'r A,
7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order: f c' s ?' J t1
9. Length of reach evaluated: ?l r 10. County: ?.1.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): S • E; 1 9 i / J Longitude (ex. -77.556611): ` 3 (1
Method location determined (circle): GP,S? (Topo Shea,) 'Ortho {Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other _
13. Location of reach under evaluation ( ote ncar)iy-roniisand landmarks andJtittach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): IJ d /"??
15. Recent weather conditions: `. v/Ja,r7r ?o
0it
e
16. Site conditions at Lime of visit: 5 v +'•/ r } )
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-1V)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: _
1.9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES N? 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?" % Residential % Commercial / 0 Flo Industri al _% Agricultural
% Forested / p % 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%n) _ Steep (>I 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. VA'here 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): r3 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date s ?.-?_ A) 4
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and ens 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 flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points) /
/
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5
f
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) '
3 Riparian zone 0-6 L 0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 O- 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges; = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 z
no discharge = 0. springs, rips 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)
W-.. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 - - - - - 0-2
f
(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)
H, 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
3
severe erosion = 0-, no erosion, stable banks = max points
go 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
-2-
no visible roots = 0- 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 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)
t?
H 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
'
p 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0
S 0-5 0-5 y
?
vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
no shading -
19 ,
Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
dee I embedded = 0, loose structure = max) 1 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 -_0.5_ 0-5 r
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
C7 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 points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
53
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assesses in coasta, suvams.
USACE AID# DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALI'T'Y ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: _F0-,J,% o ; Z>> ?r Oi??"!r''s" 2. Evaluator's name: iS,ri,r-t s
3.Date of evaluation: 5 I / 16 4 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: C n r_- r, -1 6. River basin: Ca,. 1 o'
. 2.
7. Approximate drainage area: '' O . I III r
9. Length of reach evaluated: -- f-'7_X ("'
8. Stream order: 2, J r) r-
10. County: kn-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312) : Longitude (ex. -77.556611): ?8 340, ?2 ' '1*
- z1 -------------
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet j ?Qrtho (Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other _
13. Location of reach tinder evaluation (note nearN'ds and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
M (Ali
14. Proposed channel work (if any): /\J 0 rh a
15. Recent weather conditions: V (,J w , :z - r> :5 F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sty N w \/
17.1dentify 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 j NO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
r• .
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 l d Ili Commercial /d % Industrial _% Agricultural
G JJ 1,G Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( ?
22.-Bann-Dull width: :3 23.-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank):--.- 21
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 t//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 It jo
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and en or n,{ mental professionals in
gathering the data requited 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
1 Presence of flow I persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 U-5 0-5 .--
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 Lt
7
no buffer = 0 contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = Max oin4e
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
.. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 - - ____0_2__
-
(deeply entrenched=0; frequent flooding= max points
_.-.-_.____-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0-4- 0-2
no wetlands -O; lame adjacent wetlands = max points)
g Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
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
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)
- 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
4T~
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes O-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
H little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 at
T (no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
*
4
0
. ly Substrate embeddedness N/A 0-4 -
dee ly embedded = O; loose structure = max) _
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 __0=5_ 0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous tv es = max points)
Z 1 Presence of amphibians ---- - .. 0-4 0-4 0-4
p no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
4
0
0-4
22 Presence of fish 0-4 -
no evidence = 0; conurnon numerous types = max points)
5
0
0-5
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 -
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points
Tot al Poin ts Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessea to coasiai sucmns.
USACE AID#
DWQ# -
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Pro,%ide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name; -Tow,, o"-_-- ;t? , " 2. Evaluator's name:
J r ..
3.Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: f ?? t
6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 'ce 8. Stream order;
i s ?(-
9. Length of reach evaluated: 4.0 Q- /.--E 14. County: 1''t'
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision carne (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 C> i Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): , GPS Topo Sheen) ?Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearbads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
n LAJ
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Nf 0 t- _
15. Recent weather conditions: V 1`` ri
16. Site conditions at time of visit: .Sv N tJ ?,/
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)
i-
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (N6 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES t NO 20. Does `channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?' YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?D % Residential 1 ° % Commercial /U % Industrial _% Agricultural
00 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
--...22-Bankfult width: 73.-Bank-height (from bed to top of bank):._.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) t"/ 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 ar 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 ebntinaity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stre.nm reach must ranee between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): (0 6 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date J f =? _
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and en 4irdri neutal 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 SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
4
0 0-5
1 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 r
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 J
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 I
no discharge = 0; springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points) #
00 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0 2 /
,
. no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
?
..W- 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4- - - - 0-2-
(deeply entrenched = 0• fre uent flooding= max points)
- --8- ----------Presence of adjacent wetlands 6 -Q 0-2 i1
t/
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 5
FO) 4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints :
10 Sediment input -5 F
04 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 points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
y, dee 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
E-? 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max oink.
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 12
E., 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.
7
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F' 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 /
F little or no habitat = 0; fre uenl varied habitats = max points)
1g 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
dee )ly 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
L
0 (no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) ?
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 r?
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) t /
q
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)
*'lbese cnaractensucs are noI asscssea m cuasiai bUrd UlS.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKS14EET
Provide the following-information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Town o r i-tb ?a J,2, 2. Evaluator's name: ` 1? r r r r..d .'
3.Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin:
2
7. Approximate drainage area: G 0 ' Yt1 t 8. Stream order:
S5

9. Length of reach evaluated: b o6 L F- 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34,872312) : y 5% +
Longitude (ex. -77.556611): t ? • ? 0,*
Method location determined (circle): GPS T'opo Sheet :Qrth?fAen l? Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation no e nearb t?tl`s'hn landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N0l
15. Recent weather conditions: a V to 1,1
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N 1J 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. Ts there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES s 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) j NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential 10 %a Commercial 119 _ % Industrial _% Agricultural
60 % Forested 19 % Cleared / Logged - % Other ( )
--r22. Bankfull width:-. --------------23-Bank-height-(from bed to top of-bank):
24. Chatutel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 2%) _ Gentle (2 to 4%) ___ Moderate, (4 to 10%n) _ Steep (>10%n)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet Qocated on page 2): Begin by determining the motif 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 idendfied 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 ranee between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
62-
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature - _ ____ Date l 10(o
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 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 919-876-3441 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 3
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 !/
4-
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 r I
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)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
.. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4---•• _.___O_2
a (deeply entrenched = 0; fr uent flooding = max points)
-8 . __. _-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -0-4- 0-2 h
_ no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max oints L/
g Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
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 N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine hotno enous = 0• large diverse sizes = max points
12 E-ddence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 / /
`7"
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
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.,
- 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 points)
r 17 - Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
E little or no habitat = 0-;fre vent varied habitats= max oints
1 g 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 oints
>4
0 21 Presence of amphibians - 0-4 0-4 0-4
p no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points)
a 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 3
no evidence= 0; abundant evidence= max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

'T'OTAL SCORE Also enter on first page) t -i„

*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AI_D#
DW Q#
(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: -Ty,,jr, o -? i::?i 2. Evaluator's name: < < B16.
3.Date of evaluation: 511106 4. Time of evaluation:
7
5. Name of stream: - IN 7?" 6. River basin: C• l
7. Approximate drainage area: M ` S. Stream order.
Sitc #
G Fac ,,..
?S+
9. Length of reach evaluated: -© 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 'D Longitude (ex. -77.556611):.___x. v'o
Method location determined (circle): p Topo Sheet ?r ?Ortho (Aerials Photo/GIS Other G1S Other_
13. Location of reach under evaluation earby ITT?ds`dnd landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 1?+0 t'1 .?._.._.._._
15. Recent weather conditions: S V N t,l
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SV N 10
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: )O % Residential la % Commercial la olo Industrial °,'o Agricultural
rl % Forested %o 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%0) Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>1017o)
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):
6 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature'- aKr-•?•(: Date 5 0
This channel evaluation form' is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landommer•s and et ironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Ariny Corps of Engineers to snake a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The totnl 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 Continent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
? I.?„J
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 oinLs
2 Evidence of past human nlteratinn 0-6 0-5 0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 , /
"T
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive disebar es = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge r- 0-3 0-4 0-4
= max points)
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands, etc.
?. 6 .
Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
?
-
En (no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points) 2
0 I
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4----. -
----- t '
(deeply entrenched = 0; fr ucnt floodin = max oints
-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 -04 0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
y 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 = O; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
homogenous = 0 lar a diverse sizes = max points)
fine
12 ,
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 f
`
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 /
= 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
severe erosion
14 -
Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 ?
no visible roots = 0• dense roofs throughout = maxpoints
F,
- 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-pooltripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Er 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• fre uent varied habitats = max oink
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 01 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) _O=5_. 0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points).
21 Presence of amphibians ----' - FO-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0' common numerous ty es max oints
04
0 22 Presence of fish 0-4
(no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
q 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 A1D#
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: "TU:"J,^: O n '1. 1 1,,, 2. Evaluator's name: (tire 1? rc-
3.Date of evaluation: _r0 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Flame of stream:" A1V
T G. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 40,1 i
9. Length of reach evaluated: I SLR 1--)c

8. Stream order: a 4-
10. County: \4 C,_ kn-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): _
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): v 5, C, O ;,\1 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): P 9 ;' r 1
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet :Qrth? o (Aen Photo/GIS Other GIS Other_
13. Location of reach under evaluation no e nearb ttti'ii5d landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): NJ 0 t1l l
15. Recent weather conditions: V t,., 1,1 7 : - 8 5 F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sv N 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 (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (N ) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
r
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: 10 % Residential % Commercial 1() % Industrial _% Agricultural
60 Vo Forested f % Cleared /Logged % Other (_ 1
--- 22...Bankfull width:-_---._ '23_Bank-hcight(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%)
i
25. Channel sinuosity; _Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of %vorksheet (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. NVitere 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 morecontinuity, 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 Clcq& Date
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 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 requirernent. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
a
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 points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 r
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 _1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) T
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
d no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
0 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--
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points
_----Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
!
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max oints
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 r
y, (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
H 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
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)
6,
- 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
1G Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0 5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-develo e I = rnax points
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0 6 t
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
d 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = m_ ax Dints
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4 2
(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
C) no evidence = 0- common, numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
1-4 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
?l
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assesses to coasLai sucams.
liSACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide (Ire following information for the stream reach under assessment:
^
1. Applicant's name: v! Jr_ o ? r J!G'+"%; r5 2. Evaluator's name: t r eAr? F f"
f r ? ..
3.Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: G- " " f N 6 River basin 4a
7. Approximate drainage area: 4 © • f M ; Z
8. Stream order: 5
9. Length of reach evaluated: -- ? ? L- F 10. County: W, t- (;: a'
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): _
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): v J D + i .''? Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): `,PPS Topo Sheet,,) ho AcrialJ? Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation no e ncarb o d3 aiii] landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): ____-__u
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N 0 r'j i?
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:

Sv N !J
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ______.._Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout \4'alers --_____OuLstanding Resource Watcrs 1\Tulrient 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:
1.9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?NO
21. Estimated waterslied land use: /0 %Residential (O %Commercial (C- %Industrial _% Agricultural
t00 % Forested 10 % Cleared / Logged _ % Other ( )
-22-Bankfull width: -.. -23.-Bank 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%n) _ Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight _i/ _-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 saute ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If 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 strearn under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature .1? Date I t7
This channel evaluation form is intended to he used only as a guide to assist landowners and en- vvi onir 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 SCORE:
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 I
no flow or saturation = 0• strong 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 discharges = 0• no discharges = max oints
a 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 points)
7 Entrenchment I floodplain access 0-5 0-4-- - --- -0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points
_..f;.__. - -__-Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 6 -D 0 2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 ?y
G-
(extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 04
2
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
y, (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) `7''
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 e 1
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points) 7
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 ?,
1
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) -
i ,
v4 -' 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 C
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; wall-developed = max . oink
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 NIA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, nuierous types = 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 points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100

TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: A

r
Project: A0. dVpLrk

Latitude: o o t 1
(5
Evaluator:
r Site: }-ijo?? SPA i S Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
??
County:
?<C-7 Other

APtEX
e
Qu
d N
• J
If ?9 nr mrrmiia! i(' ?() .g.
a
ame:

A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= 4-? ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
13. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 ?.3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 C 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 " 3:
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 r 3'
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7, Braided channel _
CO) E 1 2 3.
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 ") 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 j 1 2 3
10. Headcuts
11
-
. 0 .' 1 2 3
1
f
G controls 0 f' 0.5 ) .1 1..
12. Natural valley or drainagewa 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 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 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 f 1.5 1
19. Hydric soils (redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = /• {1 )
-._
._.__...____..._ .... Absent Weak Moderate Strong
b
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 21 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2` 1 0
22. Crayfish U „1 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves s 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 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton A 1 __2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75;_OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
- 1,Olher =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:
sTI?E A??11 ? " ?%
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 57 ( - Project: Aa.r vo r-k Latitude: r3 . ?? ? f\l
Evaluator: y4, Site: }-{ 0; 4 5pri S Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is nt tense ftuermittent
County: SI C Other p

e.g. Quad Name: n
Cf 2f 9 a ere dnt if 00
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ILI - d 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 sortinrd `__ 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
9a. Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts 0 t 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
or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. No = 0 , -Yes
r
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = .J Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/dischar0e 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.
18. Organic debris lines or ices Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) resent? No = 0 es = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = &. 0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Cra ish 0.5 1 _ 11.5 _
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/fun uc?s 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 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 o aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
C-- [ n.r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: - /.,1
.......... Project: Aqw V, I? Latitude: J. c o i A, b
Evaluator: 1" Site: Longitude: 70t
,ar,
.>
Total Points: Other
Srreom is al !east iruerm&reur
7'
' County: a e f
e.g. Quad Name: /14. ("t.-F'Y.
,:19 or rereruriai it _?0
If
A. Geomor holo Y (Subtotal = t?, )
_.._...... _ . _ Absent Weak Moderate
_- Strong
_ ................
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 11 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence - 0 1• 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
9 . Natural levees 0 2 3
_
10. Headcuts 0 7 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 =
_
Man-made are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal -_ n 1 _C; ) 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 - dry or growing season 0 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

0

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
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2' 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 _ 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish Q 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0s 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 a.. 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 0.5 1 1.5
29?. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= U_5;_0l3L=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence bl-aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
SrizE f}m C - FF, P
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: t f , Project: A LrAvotrk Latitude: =? ?7 5 t jai
Evaluator: Site: 14011y Spri ()55; Longitude: -a ;
Total Points:
Stly'am is fit least intenniffeill --
County: WAKC- Other
e.g. Quad Name: APEX
Y ZY9 or ere dal ff :30
A. Geornor holo Subtotal = 1'/- 0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la-.Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
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
R 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial g9 posits 0 1 2 3
--6 'Natural levees 0 1 ?..._...___ ... ............_3.._.___
10. Headcuts f 1
P 2 3
11. Grade controls 0

_
__.......... .. ---
.5

1
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 1
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 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 = I • Absent Weak Moderate Strong
200. Fibrous roots in channel 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 0.5 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 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 LKOK 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FAC .BL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
,IOther-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: Project: AcA VGLr Latitude: `=j Cj e ;? ,, J ; til
Evaluator: t rM , Site: Hp, Spri n 5 Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least interminent
z • o
County: Other

e. g. Quad Name: R Pf= X
If X49 ar urrnniol l:30

A. Geomor hology_(Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1". 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 r 1 2 3
or benches
6. Depositional bars 0 1 2 3
_
7. Braided channel _ 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9d. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts { 0, 1 2 3
11. Grade controls ( 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS rnap or other documented
evidence.
(-No= 0
Yes = 3
" Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B H drolo (Subtotal= ` C) ) 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
t
2
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris - 0 (Q. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1,- 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 p Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 4 74- ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
205. 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 01 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0. 1 ' 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 9- 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton r.0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=,035, OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
i Other 0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence-ofaqt atic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
5-rFze grvt D . FF
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: J lj Project: A0.rAVoLrk Latitude: a? (D 5 p i o? ° (\i
Evaluator: Site: Holly S i^i 5 Longitude: ??, P,?
Total Points:
Strewn is at least inrermUrenr 3 J Q
County: Other A-REX
e.g. Quad Narne:
If &9 or perennial if 230
A. Geomor holo Subtotal = 16-5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strung
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 _
70 1 2 _ 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9. Natural levees f 6 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2
....---..__......_.......__ 3
11. Grade controls *..0.,. 0.5 1 1..a.
12. Natural valley or drainagew.ay _ 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
e Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= 6. 6 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 - dfy or growing.-season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 ' 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 05 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines) 0 0 1
.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features resent? -- _
No = 0 es = 1.5?
C. Biology 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 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0. 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= J-5 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-or aquatic or wetiano
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
-5 T-p, C q m 7-
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
e f
Date: 0
Project: AcAvoo-i=
Latitude: i'`•I
Evaluator:/ Site: Holly S pPl n S Longitude:
Total Points:
Slremu is (ir lend intermittent 15
County: WA K125
t? Other

.g. Quad Name: APEX
e
ff ?M or perennint r ?0
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= / ' U ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 t
2. Sinuosity 0 1_ 2 3 )
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 0"') 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 f 0, 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits _
0
.._1 -.___.._.___..
2 ...._.__._...__-
3
9". Natural levees 0') 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 '?a 2 3
11 Grade controls
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0
0 < 0 5)
0.5 1
1 1.5
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 = 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 3
16. Leaflitter___

-
- 1.5 1 `., 0. 0
17. Sediment on plants
ants- or debris 0 0.5 f ..? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or files Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 °
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5 . s -
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 ( 1 0
21 Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Cra ish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ffi 1 2 3
Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0.5 (' 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0 S. 0.`i 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on C 0?..? 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us CO) 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Weiland plants in streambed FA =0.5; FACW=,0 75;-Ot3L=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0 `
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the prese of"dquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
sTHEf4(14
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: p Project: Aw-Av0.ri-_ Latitude: ). , f
Evaluator: vi, n'.-) Site: Hof 5vi ns Longitude: -7,8.
Total Points:
Stream is at toast bite9Hirrenr ??"
+"?•
County: WAKC Other APEX
e.g. Quad Name;
ff & or erewdalif &0
A. Geornor holo (Subtotal= U j 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 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 (2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain Om 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel C 1 - ...... 2.. _ _ 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9". Natural levees C-0) 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 .. __.._.. 2 ` 3
11. Grade controls 0 0 0o . 1 ,b.
12. Natural valley or draina eway _ 0 b.5 1 C 1.5 :1
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 = 7. 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 growing season _ 0 1 2
?.-''
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 t 0.5; 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 C1.. .1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = (0-5- Absent Weak Moderate Strong
200. Fibrous roots In channel 3 2 1 0
210. Rooted lams in channel co 1 0
22. Cra ish _ 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 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacterla/fun us Q 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
I
FAC=0.5; FACW= BL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the press-mu-of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
s 1'f,6 A (11 Cr ° I N'V
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: S 41, ?7 Project: Acrdt/Ork Latitude: $p [ ° jet
Evaluator: j ~; Site: Holt` Spri riS Longitude: 78. 8,0'{3
Total Points:
Sivennt is nt lensr inlermiarnr
° Z •'
County: WAS -, r-? = Other
A PI. X
e.g. Quad Name:
if ,49 nr pcrcnninl i/ X70 A. Geomorpholo Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong

1'. 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_ 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 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 i;,_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.
17
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 I' 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features present? No = 0 es = 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 (
.... 0.5 -1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1
- - ---...._ ... .................... -
25. Amphibians
0.5
1
t 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 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; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
or=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-`r i?FlQ D ~
WF.TI,AND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: r i "(-own o ? 1?1111 S tl s County: 1V o.?4
Nearest Road: 73,z1) -f;nf 't-nc-f 9r?ens),, Date: 5 2 d
Wetland Area (ac): 0.16
Name of Evaluator(s): j , Wetland Width (f): ___ to toa f'
?;a r?r f f
WETLAND LOCATION: ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radiu
on sound or csRisuary, pond or lake furestcd/natural vegetation 7.r'
- V on perennial steam agricultural/ urbanized %
on intermittent stream impervious surface %
within interstream divide Adjacent Special Natural Areas
other
SOILS:
Soil Series: worsharn
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
DONIINANT VEGETATION:
I .rVvtc0 S e?c4vSuS
2 Beek rne.-iA CyJIvAArlceL
n 1?ru
4 o-egxor)da
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
senliperntanently to pctmenently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
WETLAND TYPE.: (select one)*
Bottontland 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 an d brackish marshes or stream channels.
DENT RATING
WATER STORAGE X 4.00 =
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION ' X 4.00 =
POLLUTANT REMOVAL q-_ * 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 _ _(._
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
lf,?TC,A J D - `5
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: lydyark ICTtlW-,,, t 1-p( 9 r s? County: a ?e
Nearest Road: t„?hnp___S e,/- rn y Date: g' Z 06
Wetland Area (ac): p, 2 Wetland Width (ft): lp GT o
Name of Evaluator(s): y , ?jg,-re++
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other??du /rr„aaeeheoQ 441-AA
SOILS:
Soil Series: wvt ($6txrn
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat)
-ter predominantly mincra) (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
ADJACENT LAND USE
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
forestcd/natural vegetation -7 5' %
agricultural/ urbanized /+7 %
impervious surface ?r %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
I SvrtCus e?45 u s
2 c rv brv r,,N
3 ha (A,*, +k,, -o oCr_7Re*%-F.,0:_s
4 B. e h beLlg Qy (:,J rl.eA
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
? freshwater semipermancntly to penncnently flooded or inundated
_ brackish seasonally flooded or inundated
steep topography intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
_ ditched or channelized no evidence of flooding or surface water
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)"
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 STORAGE3 X 4.00 = ?-
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 2 X 4.00 - t3
POLLUTANT REMOVAL .3 X 5.00 =
WILDLIFE HABITAT Z X 2.00 =
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT X 4.00 =
RECREATION/EDUCATION X 1.00 =
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE 3
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

NVETLAND RATING; WORKSHEET (4th VERSIONS
Project Ntunc: Axffbo- k- ?TOWA o? (W"' s, vl"s County: w4c
Nearest Road: t1 j ez f- ?jv-j S,J" Date: G I 0 4?
Wetland Area (ac): (9.3 6 Wetland Width (fl): 5 -
Name of Evaluator(s): - l?osr r!{?
1VETLAN D LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream vide
v, other /5..1 New-?•i
SOILS
Soil Series: M" u u 0.4% ?W a?s ?Q?.
predominantly organic (mmus, muck or peat)
L predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
Freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width ->= 100 feet
11'E"I'I,AND'FYPF,: (select one)*
ADJACENT LAND USE
(within 1/2 mile Upstream, upslope or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 7 S %
agricultural/ urbanized /O %
impervious surface /.57- `Yo
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DONIINANT VEGETATION:
I . NmUa1a re.AaItt
2 S5"-I l ax I.Amil f- f p
3 Arr. r-brv-
4
FLOODING AND NYETNF,SS:
wrnipennanently to permenently flooded or inundated
v seasonally flooded or inundated
_ ' intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of Ilooding or surface water
Buttontland Hardwood Forest Boo/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bav , Bog Forest
Pocosin ? Ephemeral Welland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DELI RATING
WATER STORAGE 2- X 4.00 = S
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION X 4.00 = 8
to
POLLUTANT REMOVAL X 5.00 -
WILDLIFE HABITAT 2.- X 2.00 =
U
TIC LIFE H
BIT
T Z 00 -
X 4
AQ
A
A
A .
'
R FCR F ATION/EDUCATION X 1.00 =
TOTAL 14'CTLAN'D SCORE _ 3 /
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and > 10'10 nonpoint disturbance within I i2 mile upstream, up-lope, or radius.
12' x 300'
? Y

0 RDU PHOT04TENSAR SLOPE ?
•
•
CONSUMER SQUARE
CHARLOTTE, NC 30' TALL
0