20160212 Ver 3_U5828_NC54_Bypass_PhaseII_PCN_Package_20170501_20170502

�������������
May 1, 2017
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Mr. Rob Ridings
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Nationwide Permit 14 Application — TIP# U-5828
NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) Project, Phase 2
Town of Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina
USACE AID: SAW-2014-02205
NCDWR Project #20160212
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer and Mr. Ridings:
On behalf of the Town of Morrisville, Kimley-Horn is submitting the attached application for
authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 for the above referenced project. The project
proposes to construct Phase II of the NC 54 Bypass project (NCDOT TIP# U-5828) in Morrisville to
extend McCrimmon Parkway from Airport Boulevard to Aviation Parkway at Evans Road. The
proposed roadway will be four lanes wide with median to accommodate existing traffic loads and
reduce congestion along the NC 54 corridor.
The preferred alignment would construct approximately 1.45 miles of new location roadway through a
forested area of Morrisville that is currently managed for silviculture and was clear-cut in the last 5
years. The proposed alignment was selected to avoid streams and wetlands throughout the corridor
to the greatest extent practical. The alignment was located along a topographic ridge through the
corridor to avoid the large stream and floodplain systems located west of the corridor. However, the
project will result in unavoidable impacts to streams, riparian buffers, and wetlands within the project
corridor. Compensatory mitigation has been proposed for unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands at a 2:1 ratio. Impacts to the protected riparian buffer of streams SD and SH will exceed 150
LF or 1/3�d acre in size and are "allowable with mitigation" according to the Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Rules. Mitigation has been proposed for the buffer zone 1 impacts at the required 3:1
ratio, and 1.5:1 for buffer zone 2.

�l�����������
To assist in your review of this application, the following information has been included:
• PCN Application Form
• Signed Agent Authorization
• Figures
• Stream and Wetland Data Forms
• USACE and NCDWR Documentation for
Stream Riparian Buffer Mitigation Credits
from the Morrisville Community Park Site
Page 2
• Wetland Mitigation SOA Letter
• Stream and Wetland Impact Drawings
• Buffer Impact Drawings
• Plan Sheets
• NCDWR Submittal Check for $570
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this NWP application,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-678-4155 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
�,� �� �' ,.�',i>
r���- f�'���':
Jason Hartshorn
Environmental Analyst
Attachments

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. A licant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: � Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? � Yes ❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express � Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes � No ❑ Yes � No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation � Yes ❑ No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ❑ Yes � No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes � No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: TIP# U-5828 - NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) - Phase II
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Morrisville
2d. Subdivision name: n/a
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state U-5828
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: The Town of Morrisville (Right-of-Way acquisition is in progress, and will be completed
prior to construction)
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if glake Mills, Director of Public Works
applicable):
3d. Street address: 414 Aviation Parkway
3e. City, state, zip: Morrisville, NC 27560
3f. Telephone no.: 919-463-7071
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Jason Hartshorn, PWS
5b. Business name Kimley-Horn
(if applicable):
5c. Street address: 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27601
5e. Telephone no.: 919-678-4155
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A (Linear transportation project)
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.839031 Longitude: - 78.817758
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 115.9 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Crabtree Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: B; NSW
2c. River basin: Neuse River Basin
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The majority of the project corridor consists of undeveloped forested land between Aviation Parkway and Airport
Boulevard. The eastern and western ends of the project corridor consist of mixed-use commerical, industrial, and office
space, and the land use in the vicinity of the corridor is largely developed as commercial, industrial, residential, and office
parks. A large expanse of the forested area in the center of the corridor is managed for silviculture and was recently
clearcut.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3.14 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
2,544 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed project would extend McCrimmon Parkway from an existing section at Airport Boulevard to Aviation
Parkway at Evans Road, improving the north-south mobility for travelers east of NC 54 within the Town of Morrisville and
to reduce congestion along NC 54.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project would construct a new location roadway alignment from Airport Boulevard to Aviation Parkway,
increasing road network connectivity in this rapidly growing area of Morrisville. The proposed project connects existing
sections of McCrimmon Parkway to Aviation Parkway constructing approximately 1.45 miles of new location roadway.
The new location roadway will be 4-lane divided roadway to match the existing sections and accommodate existing and
future traffic in this area. Typical roadway construction equipment will be used, including cranes, track hoes, back hoes,
graders, dump trucks, bulldozers, and pavers.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: A preliminaryjurisdictional determination request � Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
was submitted to the USACE and a field review with David
Shaeffer was conducted on December 4, 2014.
Documentation is currently pending.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? � Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn
Name (if known): Jason Hartshorn and Ross Sullivan Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination request was submitted to the USACE and a field review with David Shaeffer was
conducted on December 4, 2014, and documentation is currently pending. NCDWR issued a Buffer Determination Letter
(NBRRO #14-304) on September 10, 2014.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
The NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) Project Phase I extends from NC 54 to Airport Boulevard and was approved
by the USACE (SAW-2014-02205) on April 25, 2016 and NCDWR on March 30, 2016 (DWR# 20160212). The permit
approvals were then modified to change the mitigation approach and utilize Town of Morrisville mitigation credits from the
Morrisville Community Park Stream and Riparian Buffer Restoration Project on November 16, 2016 (USACE) and
October 10, 2016 (NCDWR).
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
� Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, explain.
This project is the second and final phase of the Town of Morrisville's NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) Project.
Phase I is currently under construction and will connect existing sections of McCrimmon Parkway between NC 54 and
Airport Boulevard. Phase II will continue the NC 54 Bypass on new location from Airport Boulevard to Aviation Parkway.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
� Wetlands � Streams - tributaries � Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non-404, other) (acres)
Tem ora T
Site 1- WK Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.108
Site 1— WK Construction � Yes � Corps
❑ P� T Access Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.011
Site 2- WJ Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.022
Site 3- W I Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.118
Construction
Site 3- W I � Yes � Corps
❑ P� T Access/Temporary Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.008
Tree Clearing
Site 4- WG Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.167
Site 4- WG Construction � Yes � Corps
❑ P� T Access/Temporary Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.003
Tree Clearing
Site 5- WF Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.072
Site 6- WE Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.114
Site 6- WE Construction � Yes � Corps
❑ P� T Access/Temporary Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.009
Tree Clearing
Site 7- WB Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.088
Site 7- WB Construction � Yes � Corps
❑ P� T Access/Temporary Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.009
Tree Clearing
Site 8- WA Roadway � Yes � Corps
� P❑ T Construction Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.271
Site 8- WA Construction � Yes � Corps
❑ P� T Access Riverine � No ❑ DWQ 0.107
0.960 acres
2g. Total wetland impacts (Permanent)
0.147 acres
(Temporary)
2h. Comments: Unavoidable impacts to riparian wetlands within the project corridor will result from the construction of the
proposed roadway. Temporary impacts will result due to construction access for roadway construction equipment and
temporary tree clearing. Tree clearing areas will not be maintained and will be allowed to revegetate with woody vegetation.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non-404, width (linear feet)
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet)
Stream SH
Site 2- SH Roadway ❑ PER � Corps
� P❑ T Construction (UT to Stirrup Iron � INT ❑ DWQ 3 64
Creek)
Stream SH Non-
Site 2- SH Roadway 404 ❑ PER ❑ Corps 3 92
� P❑ T Construction (UT to Stirrup Iron � INT � DWQ
Creek)
Site 2— SH Construction Stream SH � PER � Corps
❑ P� T Access (UT to Crabtree � INT ❑ DWQ 3 26
Creek)
Site 3- SG Construction Stream SG � PER � Corps
❑ P� T Access (UT to Stirrup Iron � INT ❑ DWQ 3 17
Creek)
Stream SE
Site 4- SE Construction ❑ PER � Corps
❑ P� T Access (UT to Crabtree � INT ❑ DWQ 3 47
Creek)
Stream SF
Site 5- SF Construction ❑ PER � Corps
� P❑ T Access (UT to Crabtree � INT ❑ DWQ 4 74
Creek)
Stream SF
Site 5- SF Construction ❑ PER � Corps
❑ P� T Access (UT to Crabtree � INT ❑ DWQ 4 13
Creek)
Stream SD
Site 7- SD Roadway ❑ PER � Corps
� P❑ T Construction (UT to Crabtree � INT ❑ DWQ 4 238
Creek)
Stream SD
Site 7- SD Construction ❑ PER � Corps
❑ P� T Access (UT to Crabtree � INT ❑ DWQ 4 28
Creek)
376 LF
Permanent,
92 LF Non-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 404
Permanent,
131 LF
Temporary
3i. Comments: Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streams will result from the proposed roadway construction. Impacts to
streams will result from the installation of culverts to carry the streams beneath the McCrimmon Parkway roadway corridor.
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
— Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
01 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments: No open water impacts will result from the proposed project.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
Sf. Total
5g. Comments: No ponds or lakes will be constructed as a result of the proposed project.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes � No If yes, permit ID no: n/a
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): n/a
5k. Method of construction: n/a
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
� Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number— Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary impact required?
(T)
Site 1 Road Stream SH � Yes
� P❑ T Crossing (UT to Stirrup Iron Creek) ❑ No 26,709 13,182
Site 2 Road Stream SE ❑ Yes
� P❑ T Crossing (UT to Crabtree Creek) � No 3,495 3,939
Site 3 Road Stream SD � Yes
� P❑ T Crossing (UT to Crabtree Creek) ❑ No 15,627 12,643
6h. Total buffer impacts 45,831 29,764
6i. Comments: Unavoidable impacts to the riparian buffers of streams SD, SE, and SH will result from the road construction.
The riparian buffers will be crossed perpendicularly to minimze impacts. According to the NRB Buffer Rules, impacts at Site 2
are "allowable" (road crossings that impact greater than 40 LF but equal to or less than 150 LF), and impacts at Sites 1 and 3
are "allowable with mitigation" (road crossings that impact greater than 150 LF or 1/3�d-acre of riparian buffer).
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers have been avoided and minimized to the extent practical. The
alignment will tie into the existing section of McCrimmon Parkway to minimize new construction length and impacts. The
alignment has been located along the topographic ridge as much as practical to avoid larger stream and wetland systems
located in the bottomlands adjacent ot the project area. The alignment was also located intentionally to minimize earthwork
and grading required, reducing the required fill slopes along the alignment and limiting stream and wetland impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to streams within the corridor will be minimized to the extent practical throughout the construction process by avoiding
stream and wetland features where practical. Equipment staging and construction access will be located in upland areas
throughout the corridor, and silt fencing will be installed around the permitted limits of distrubance to ensure all equipment is
located within the project corridor at all times near stream and wetland areas. Sediment control measures will be used to
reduce stormwater impacts to receiving waters and minimze runoff from the construction sites.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for � Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): � DWQ � Corps
� Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ❑ Payment to in-lieu fee program
� Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: EBX-Neuse Neu-Con Wetland & Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Arrington Bridge III Site
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Riparian Quantity 1.92 acres
Wetlands
3c. Comments: Mitigation credits for unavoidable impacts to riparian riverine wetlands in the project corridor have been
reserved with RES, LLC from the Arrington Bridge III Site located in Neuse HUC 03020201. See attached Statement of
Availability Letter for more information.
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Mitigation credits for the proposed project will be provided from the "Morrisville Community Park Stream & Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Site" as discussed with the USACE and NCDWR and multiple meetings and in communications through late
2016 and early 2017. The mitigation site will provide 752 linear feet of stream mitigation credits, and will provide 165,746
square feet of riparian buffer mitigation credits.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that � Yes ❑ No
requires buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 Road Construction 42,336 3(2 for Catawba) 127,008
Zone 2 Road Construction 25,825 1.5 38,738
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 165,746
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to riparian buffers of stream SD and SH will be provided by the "Morrisville Community
Park Stream & Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site". The mitigation site will provide 165,746 riparian buffer credits as discussed
outlined in the NCDWR closeout documentation for the mitigation site and as confirmed by NCDWR at various meetings
and in conversations held in late 2016 and early 2017. Mitigation credits have been fully constructed and closed out with
NCDWR and the USACE.
6h. Comments: n/a
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified � Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
� Yes ❑ No
Comments: See attached erosion control plans
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 17.8 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? � Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: n/a
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The project is a linear transportation project, and all new conveyances will meet diffuse flow prior to discharge into a
buffer. See attached Erosion Control Plan Sheets for stormwater management features.
� Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local governmenYs jurisdiction is this project? Town of Morrisville
� Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs � NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes � No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ ORW
(check all that apply): ❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? � Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? � Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the � Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State � Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) � Yes ❑ No
Comments: An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is currently in-progress.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes � No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑ Yes � No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): n/a
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in � Yes � No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project is designed to reduce current and projected local traffic loads in the congested NC 54 corridor by providing
an east-west connector between NC 54 and Aviation Parkway
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The proposed project will not generate any wastewater.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
� Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes � No
❑ Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Database (updated October 2015), no known
occurrences of any federally threatened or endangered species within the study area. There is a bald eagle occurrence
on Lake Crabtree, located 3,700 feet northeast of the study area. Kimley-Horn biologists conducted a survey of the
project study area plus an additional 660 feet of the project limits per NCDOT bald eagle survey protocol. No bald eagles
or nests were identified during the survey. Due to the lack of individuals or nests, it has been determined that this project
will not affect bald eagle.
Suitable habitat is present within the project corridor for Michaux's sumac. Kimley-Horn biologists conducted pedestrian
surveys within the corridor on October 19, 2015 and observed no Michaux's sumac within the project corridor. There is
also suitable roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat within the project corridor, however the USFWS has
developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the
USACE, and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) in eastern North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire
NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The programmatic determination for NLEB
for the NCDOT program is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect". The PBO provides incidental take coverage for NLEB
and will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five years for all NCDOT projects with a
federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Wake County, where TIP U-5828 is located.
Suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel does not exist in the study area. Only one large perennial stream (SA) is located
in the study, and the other streams are intermittent in nature and prone to drying out completely during drier months.
Stream SA has been impacted by human development in the upstream watershed and is deeply incised with bank
failures throughout the study area. SA is a tributary to Crabtree Creek, which is 303(d) listed less than 1.0 mile
downstream of the project area due to poor ecological/biological integrity of benthos and for a polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) fish tissue advisory. The study area is also separated from any downstream occurrences of this species by multiple
impoundments and the large dam and spillway creating Lake Crabtree. A review of NCNHP records, updated October
2015, indicates no known dwarf wedgemussel occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to a lack of suitable
habitat and lack of documented occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project area, it has been determined that the proposed
project will have "No Effect" on dwarF wedgemussel.
Suitable habitat is not present within the project area for red-cockaded woodpecker. Forests in the study area are
successional mixed pine and hardwood forests with dense understories, and would not support red-cockaded
woodpecker foraging or nesting habitat.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? �❑ Yes
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper (Accessed April 12, 2016)
�►1m
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation � Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service (Accessed April 12, 2016) shows no
National Register or National Register Study List sites within the project study area. Multiple historic sites are located
approximately 0.60 miles southwest of the project corridor west of the intersection of NC 54 and Morrisville-Carpenter
Road. Due to the distance between the sites and the proposed project, and the nature of the project proposed, it is
unlikely that the project will have any effect on a historic or archaeological resource in the area.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ❑ Yes � No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: n/a
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? There are no FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains
within the project area. The project area appears on FEMA DFIRM Panels 3720075500J, 3720075600J (effective
5/2/2006).
Jason Hartshorn �'� 5/1/2017
�
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(AgenYs signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

AI�L�;1V 1 AU 1 riUK1GA 11U1V r�VK1V1
Narr�e: 15 � 7� 1� /yt ( l.� �'
Address: � r`Y 7{ P. /� T7> r� � l� t� 1.� n 7 r�r � �t �✓< << � �,, � -z. �- f��
Phone: 7n � y � � � � � � �� f
Project i�ame/Descrip�ioa.: M�Crimmon Parkway Extension Project - Phase,Ii (TIP# U-S82$1
Date: J a �`r Z f// cl
The Department of the Army
1J.5. Arm, Corrs of En�ineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Eric Alsme er
Field OfFice: Raleigh Ke�u�y riei� vrn��
n�: Wetland Relatec� C�nsulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
The Town of Morrisville hereby designa�es and au�hor�zes Kimley-Harn and r�ssaciaie,, tn�. to act iri
mylour behalf as myJour agent solelv for the purpose of processing lurisdic�ional De�ermina�ions-
Sec�ion 4Q4 permi�sfSec�ion 4i„ Water �ualiry CeRi�ica�ions arrIications, and Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer De�ermina�ions, and �o furnish upon reques� supplemen�al informa�ion in suppor� oi
applicaiions; et�. f.om tHis day forward until successful completion of the permitting process or
revocation by �he owner.
In addi�ion, �; �he undersigne�l, a aui, wuthorized owner of recard of the property/properties identifed
herein, do au�hori�e represen�a�ives oi�he Wilming�on Dis�ric�. U.S. Army Corps of �ngineers �Corrs�
to enter uYan the property herein described for the purpose af canduc�ing on-si�e inves�iga�i�ns and
issuing a de�ermina�ian associa�ed wi�h Wa�ers af ��e u.a. subjeci �o Federal �urisdictian u�der Section
404 af the Clean Water Ac� and{or Sec�ion 10 of �he Rivers and Harbors Ac� of 1899.
Au��orized �i�is �he Z � day of �J � _ _ . Z e , .
�j 1.lk lt-� (v� � LLj � Q� Q�i � F'a ft ��
Print Property 4wner's Name ��Ql`S Property ner's Signa�ure
Cc: naren r�iggins
NC Division of Wa�er Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
I650 rv►ail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-165U

MITIGATION BANK
STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY

•�+ r
�,►.�
EBX-Neuse I, LLC Stream and Wetland Banks
Statement of Availability Apri128, 2017
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Eric Alsmeyer
Raleigh Regulatory Fie1d Office
3331 Heritage Trade Center, Suite 105
Wake Farest, NC 27587
Re Project: U-5828 — NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway), Phase II
This document confirms that Town of Morrisville (Applicant) for the U-5828 — NC 54 Bypass
(McCrimmon Parkwav), Phase II(Project) has expressed an interest to utilize 1.92 Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Credits from the EBX-Neuse sponsored Neu-Con Wetland & Stream Umbrella Mitigation
Bank, specifically from the Arrington Bridge III Site in the Neuse HUC 03020201. As the official Bank
Sponsor, EBX-Neuse I, LLC, attests to the fact that mitigation is available for reservation at this time.
These mitigation credits are not considered secured, and consequently are eligible to be used for alternate
purposes by the Bank Sponsor, until payment in full is received from the Applicant resulting in the
issuance of a Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate by the bank acknowledging that the Applicant has
fully secured credits from the bank and the Banker has accepted full responsibility for the mitigation
obligation requiring the credits/units.
The Banker will issue the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate within three (3) days of receipt of the
purchase price. Banker shall provide to Applicant a copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate and
a documented copy of the debit of credits from the Bank Official Credit Ledger(s), indicating the permit
number and the resource type secured by the applicant. A copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer
Certificate, with an updated Official Credit Ledger will also be sent to regulatory agencies showing the
proper documentation.
If any questions need to be answered, please contact me at 919-209-1052.
Best Regards,
� � �
Cara S. Conder
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

MORRISVILLE COMMUNITY PARK
MITIGATION CREDIT
DOCUMENTATION

��ENT Op..�-Q`
4, �
c M
w ' : � �"` m
G y''hl����t.� i M
�` . �+K�: " ,:'
��G' �.. . .-�.` . o-`p::
`� "TTITLS UF �,�
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
December 22, 2016
SUBJECT: Action ID SAW- SAW-2014-02205
Mr. Blake Mills
Town of Morrisville
414 Aviation Parkway
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
Dear Mr. Mills:
Reference the Department of the Army (DA) nationwide peimit verification (Action
ID SAW-2002-21120) issued to the Town of Morrisville (Town) on July 22, 2002, authorizing
the discharge of fill material into unnamed tributaries to Crabtree Creek, associated with the
construction of the Moirisville Community Park Stream & Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site (MCP
Site). Reference also the Department of the Army (DA) statutory nationwide permit verification
(Action ID SAW-2014-02205) of Apri125, 2016, and subsequent revised verification of
November 16, 2016, authorizing the Town to dischas•ge fill material into an unnamed tributary to
Crabtree Creek, associated with the construction of the NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway)
Project, Phase 1(NCDOT TIP U-5828), with required mitigation of 36 credits from the MCP Site.
By e-mail dated August 25, 2016, Kimley-Horn, on behalf of the Town, requested use of the
MCP Site for compensatory mitigation for several Town road projects, including Phases 1 and 2
of the U-5828. The Corps and the NC Division of Water Resources reviewed the MCP Site with
Kimley-Horn on October 27, 2016, and found that the two tributaries have severe bank erosion
problems within the mitigation site, as well as failure or compromise of several mitigation srivctures,
areas of the buffer with limited growth, one area of the bu£fer with a mowing encroachment, and
severe sedimentation in Yhe stream bed.
Based on these observations at the mitigation site, the Corps will not confirm use of this site
for compensatary mitigation for any other permitted impacts, until the Town provides
compelling data documenting quantitative or qualitative measures of the desired aquatic
resource functions that the site provides, and documenting that the site will continue to function
over time in a changing landscape, as described in the April 10, 2008, Compensatory Mitigation
for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (Mitigation Rule, 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, and 40
CRR Part 230), and consistent with the October 24, 2016, Wilmington District St�eam and
Wetland Compensatoiy Mitigation Update, North Carolina Interagency Review Team.

In addition, the Corps will not confiim use of this permittee-responsible mitigation for more than
a single project (i.e., U-5828), unless a formal mitigation bank is established for use of this site, as
described in the Mitigation Rule.
When the Town has provided all of the necessary information, and the Corps has had time to
review it, we will inform you of the credits that will be available for use for Phase 2 of
U-5828.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], ext., 23.
Sincerely, ,
<
! Jea�B. Gibby
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Jason Hartshorn
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, NC, 27513
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Resom•ces
North Carolina Department of
EnvirontnenYal Quality
1617 Mail Seivice Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Ms. Katie Merritt
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

� "`4���
�C�I�PlR
North Carolina DepaRment of Environment and Natural Resources
6everly Eaves P�rque
GOV2�f1U�
Mr. t3lake Mills
l own ot Morrisville
P.O. Box 166
Morrisville, NC: l /�bU
�Ivi51�i i uf VVa[e� �tua�lty
Charles Wafcild, P. E.
Director
Uctober Ly, LU l l
Ke: Morrisville Co��,mu,��ty Park
Str�am and Neuse Ri�,arian Buffer Restoration Project
Year 2 Qualitati�=e Monit�ring tce�ort and �ite Lloseout
W aKe C:ounty
U W (2 #U1-US�U
Dear. Mr. Mills:
Dee Freeman
SC��c[ai y
Un 1 uesaay, July I U, ZU 1 Z, �ric Kulz with the llivision of Water Quality visited the above-
reterenced site with Da.-id Gainey� of S&EC f�r the �,u��.,ose of evaluating re�,lanted buffer areas
on the site. During an on-site meeting in January �f 200y, �ortions of the stream riparian butrer
wcrc aefi�icnt in or 1acKing woody vegetation reyuired ror stream mi�i�aiion and Neuse riparian
butter mitiga�ion projec�s. li was agreed ihat the ar�as in question would be repta�,ted, and that
v�sual mon►toring of the site would continue for tw� y�ars.
� he re�lantea areas appeared satistactory during our site meetin�, and the originaiiy-pian�ed
areas were very dense and woody vege�a�ion was robust and diverse. A closed cano�,y has
tormed over ►nost ofthe st�eam, and dee�,-rooted woody v�g�tation a�,�,ears to be �,r�viding good
bank stabilization.
lluantitative moniiorin� ot �he s�ream and butters was discon�int�ed in ZU 1 U alter rive yea� s.
tiased on �he resulis ar ihe monitoring, the stream mitigation at the s�te has been determin�d to
be successful; and DWQ considers the �r�,j��t clo��d out.
Similarly, all riparian butter areas appeared to be meetin� pertormance standards t�llowing
replan�in� and iwo years ot �isual muni�oring. No tunher veg�tation monitoring is �equired and
the buiter mit►satio,� �,�oject �s considered closed out.
1617 Iplad S-cr9i�—c l;cllie�, Ralcn,�h, Ri,fih (:a�Clilla Y769y-1ti17
LOCd00f1 51Z � JEli�6a�r �t Ral'cyh, N'v�i GarClinE Z7bU4
Pii0�0: y ly-8V/-03UU I rAJC: ylyiSU%-04yZ
Inteme� www.ncwatenoua�ty.a�
An Equal Op�Nrtunitr', A�rtnatrve A�6�n Emp��r�r
NorthCarolina
�atllPall�

ivir. Blake Mills
10/25/12
Page 2 ot 2
�l�own of M�rri�ville �,ersonnel on-site indi�ated that signage was being �re�area for tne outside
�f the conservation area (some signs alreaay in place). Ylease ensure that at1 boundaries are
acicyuately marked, particularly where encroachmen�s (mowing) had previously occurred.
l hank you ior your efforts and co��.,erati�n which have resulted in a suc�essful stream and
ri�,arian buffer mitigation �,roject. Please feel frec to contact �ric ttulz at (y ► y) �u �-64 �b or
Amy Cha�,man at (y 1 y) �U /-64UU it you riave any yuestions re�ardin� this pr�ject or �ur
comments.
5incerety, �
aren Hig�ins, visor
Wetlands, Butters, Sr r�mva�er - C;ompliance & Pennin���g U��;t
cc: N��le Co�,y (��►c Kulz)
David Gainey — D&EC, 1 i 0 i 0 xaven xidge ttd., Ka�eign, NL 1/614
�bi7 Mad 5arv�� l;�nrr, Raleyh, I�oRh l;arvhna Y7tiyy-1b17
[ocation 5�� IG �ali�6��r at Ral�ig�f, I�Oi4i Ga�Elilla Z/bU4
Phone� 91a-8u7-63vu I rxx a�y-nu7-o4yz
Intemdt www.ncwaEemualitv.oro
A� Equal Op�rtuniry �� Aifirtnative Aolwn Emplo�ar
O11G
N orthC:arolina
�atura7l�

FIGURES

� �F ro . . _ , . ' 4..- i� .s`� .�r 'I; _ . � . _ � .�� ,�
;q _ _ � _ _ � � N
�� . _ _ � - - - - `�'�;._ � �
� � �_ � "��� � ��, � `� _ -� � �'`� _ .
� w , # � . - _ _ �'`, = i — _ �r �,,� � 4 � 6
-�--e.. r� ` ,�
--
•_ � ,¢� � , - - � � � -. � ��� �;�� � �
' � ',
. �W .k N� r � ,: � — . _ --z- - _ _ ,.�w
�' ,
�. r . _ � . .��� � '� �I � �-4,k ��=
W"� °
> ` 1 °r f -� 4 `` �y
r � .� y ��; � �
r' :� d r
— -_ _ .�o E�� _ . p � d r, �.� ,
- — -- i + � -, , � 4 � a — �; �� - - -, ~� •s �;
f� 4
S � �
rti
������ —� --- z � t '.��. I�� � �� — — � ,�i �� ��
— •Y.r/ � �`�� ���. _ }�-£�,7� _ +� � ~ a_- — -- �
� ty w!' �� i y �d 1 - Y _ �t ..�a.' _ ��-� � �`,--- �
,a f� � _ �`t� �_.� 1 � ,' � - �-- �
" - -� � � � + . � ��, �```� �� z'" - ,% -; _ �'��= � '
° � �' !� � _ �t �� � __ _ � ��4.—{ S�Ys,_ ,R
. a '� � r �` Y ` , +�� � — _
� �� � � 4i°��'��' � ��} �`r41 �f � , � � � � '• � � ' X
r' � � >� .
e �� .� �� t � V • "`y ' � 1 A P' y � �•"\ . _ _ �•'i
..« . . '�,. � , ,' . � � 41 �y .h r' � .td �� � ,�'a � � .
r L =— � ` x•-• � --� - - � !� ����
-.� - ��� `�-�� _ � � .;.
} � �,� � • � ��, � �,� �� �.� ^ � ��f� n,is �'�`�
� ,- � _ ,��.�, �� �t ���' +r°:�' ��_� t� t ,- ,W �,� ���
� °'� �, - '� �' �� �� '� - _ � y. �6 _ -�'� � '�: ��
��� ' �� *'' ,�'�; � � � f- ��'�. k ,�
�' � , , � _ � �' � .�r - -
�- '� s � �� � '• " _ _ 'P � � � ,��� � �y �'^ �i ��
,r �. "- . - F p� � � � � 'i ,,�
�A� �;�i � . . -' / . �,,,� i' �� �� � E'.* ` —`�_ � —� _� d � � �..
*''RLy � �s _ _ . ,����` � Y- _� , � 'a� � i� 'r,���e - r � .
y,, �, . i " -� � � , �j � .
�A * �Lz - e. � � � '`����'. ,; d �y�^ � . . F _� � _
' � '�' � r \a_��i � � � �� � I dr ~�� - _ � � - �+'�6 � .
� ,� � y� _ , - F, �� _ - �� 4 j
- --•- � F e � . . -• yr L,�� � � ..,.
�� � � � � � -_ - — � � � _ - — ..� � �'y_. .. + . - _ i.��� ' ..
e'� '� `��ti �
� �-k 11��� � r`�.` �' � � �tlll. �� �� . � Af ` - . � � � t r� � , �� . � ���4� „
tl - ` � y -�� �-z - 1 ._a ti -I_ ` _- �'..� , � 1� : -
� ri :h.�. � �W, �
�� i � '- .�--�r-� '�` `S".� {a d � 1 �q � _er I � � �� '� +�_
* �� a �. � - A � /�}' ��' � .h� h��'��- 1 �' ��
� ` '"�' -1 �.s— . � I � w, ' , � 5 %� �k y..__.
- . � � � ���Y i�) ��' - •� il � _ � �§S _ . 1 �1 �� J � �
. Q _ � 1- I � 4�� � %� �� __ " 'd ���.! :.a�'t
. • . _ � �� - � � _
• c; i � `' h. f � �1 li� � . �• I I � r �J � �l,e_ `h _ '
��.y, i'�..�� � � � ��� �,yE..� � � � — °�' � `J _`� p
�` . � i ~ ! �`� ���� " 1 �i�� � �y
� . 4 -_s�' J! � 4 � � • � � � �` ��s°� _ "-�p' '• � ` :.
� � �.._�. ��� � * �- � }` � ��4•, �� - _ -
,�y �
'�,, � ��,., �� j ,,.• 4 ``,. y� � _ �,��� _ _ _ ,
_ , �
a�'$t . � �- y,�"� � � ' .� _ - _ - —
N . � , .
,
� .
,
, '-
. ��
� I - — _ _
"� � ':�.� , � =
M , I� �.�iII++�� � - = h �- � � .,�-�- `}+ ,` ,•" 1���
_ . `;1 �, �ry�7 � �. i � ':..a * '., � � (i * y� .�. s�-'4 '� �''s. , _ F I iO
.� � _� 4r �`a � * � � �. '�,, 2 4 __;1� ..
' _ I ; g _ _ � � 4 P '' '� s � �� �� i; "�k: � ��
- 1. � � �n �'� .
-.� � y''i�. y #. � I � •- * � � �'t� '� �1' I�#'! {� • � � I , �' �,,
�� .1
� �.. " __-� �' � � ' �' - �� _. _ �eqend
:� � '� �-- � �
:� . : .'n� � � ti
~ ��. ' �'' � ,, ; � � ,�� -
� � , � - �` � � �-� �' , � Project Study Area
, _
# rt`� ���� = � ,I
�: :� �, y N . � f ;f . �.�
._ . � . iY '` t� �■ #� 2 4 �tlM° ^ ' _
� �� �a K. ���,� ;_=��a:��y R .� � 0 1,000 2,000
�' ' ' '��, � �, =��* ��, Feet
' �',i� � ���;� �c R.; �4t —,�' y a 4 )
��'�,�'Sr)�`���;�� Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
�;; ����� TIP U-5828
'� � \'�� NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) - Phase I I
`� � � Town of Morrisville, Wake County, NC
i �/ r \�-�.�
If�� ��� -

..,n,,,..� � I z �ti�S�'� ..l},�g, � . �� i ��� I �� Y 'f1�' �, . � i ��1� LYy R� .. , � - -
� � ;�� 'i� : 3 r � �S ��.,�, r . � �r *r . ,r s ..y . V . it� �) � . {�� ..
*^r' �. . " �. e� �; ����c �� s �� � � � Q � ^.;.,� }` r �4 . ���. '�' '� [�.,��� �;� '*y� q ' N � ��
e = ,� r' �- ,b� fy�' _, a �,; i'. t�, � " i 1.�,. °� s� ( � w ��kK ��±.'�?. 2 ' �.,.,3'" 1 �;� �f�,'� �? �
�.�- ..� . "'�� � � � ��, ��A 'Y�'Y' . k •�}'iM�o't Y.�"��� �.L?+ �', ! �
� -_ ""_""-� �'.�„� +k' j ��d " '�-n�1 , '� �i,,k � k R , r L-�, . , � °� �j
- . �. , ! P' ' '�n"�. . �t{ „ �'�. F � �� M. t !^%�, �,. {:' �
; �! � ( :�����W� �R r �, ,,,� ,��r� . � n y � +
! � � � � a� " a, �� � � `-a ` � s � t.�
`� � � .
= � � �� � �,• y ri � � R^ ��/ . :� �. � , ��>..,, � r � � � �
iU � � i � � ( � � � 4 Mf( jy�.�;�L�,..�,,. �, e. �r_ i .�/' �r 2 . � i
d ,,s� �,� ' �`
`,.�. ¢� `e �..., �. .. r, r � - a f ' �f �� v � .. . � 1 i �P;� � �' � �'k' �i'r".: � �. .'iY4� ' t . -,,�Ay,� y,� :. ' � �' i . ` Ttr�ir'; � � � � �� � � � �
,�,' � lp' E � d: 3
�7V��� ,v� t,g,b�� r� . '_.�:.�_;� � r i;� . ��.,Y�'� � `'_ J.,��! ��Yr� ' . .If' � .� . , � � ,' Yi� �• r�� �_,I:,q, f1�,5�.'y1_„, � � .� �'.� "
Q, � � � ,:wR��* >f,; .s� a. �.`J=., � `� �y.�' �!� 5_ �4�� , , �: %
f �'�, ��pC�� � a,•' � �I,J i -, r � � i � ��t�� '�. ,p, ,°� r'�'ih�;; �t ry +�4;�,.
°�$ ►` �� � � � p �7�� � � �� �: �� � � ' � � � i.��� , �:' J; Y i,4r ��7., i � � ���i7lrr ' ; "pfi�.�•7 7 .. r �?�;., _'��"
�f 6 ! �3
J 4 i,� ,: ���,MF.3��qj �A� � � . � Y���{{ � 1'��K''���. a! A�i{wu�?1�,�'r �.y, i k ���
1 ra� : �`.. ,,t :cy r ,r '� •, �a+, - e r, k` , � .i7 � .� . � ' ��,",
��`� a � �� � �_� k ��a" ' j. e . ���-. _�y�?'e i"� d � � a �1pi� 1'�5� :' ��.,� d ���� ' � . 1��� �� �.k�:i�
'�' g� x � � � �,� '� Lf 1 �� �
j�` ._�a � .4-� �, r.�;A ` , ,r'y� V� � yR �''r �� � 8 �, . �"�� . �
,�'� ��""ti �. '.,� 'Y� � : � � ^ �r W I �. F t ,� ih °� : ���-0 ` � Y"h` �+t � 4 . , . ��!`sr .; ,' �.y.
�'y ,V� ,c' �- � . � % �^s r 1 °� �T�`rn � � � 'P,� � x r � i ., �� 't 5 . � � � �!s. .
'T Q C,.'rS,.r � r �: R . ' ..: { ��� ��' M�'� � � �''.;..4 % �,.3 �'� �'�.''S� �� � � , h n "_��,�^4 } �'. . rfY�'
�' '` - a ." eF7� �'� � � � . �� - +�it� ��� 9 atu VM+� 3 �, � : viF� s �,! i�� r ,�5, �. �X� s� +}}y s}i .
r �j�.� p�r��. . _ *i,.�. j �. 1Y ( r� ... M +':��,fl.tl�"-�1�' �+�A'�*�r��;.t'}bhY�S�Acj`,'`.�� . �•��-
«n'�S .�„ .' w � � ��'� �p{ +S� f a� V 1 � � �� /'� r('�i � t�k R � �� . ' R .
d �?"� $ �,�' �a ."��"� `f�y� . _w' � r . :
-y: �,� � � v�75'X � � _ �,� r' �.`ir ( �`n t � ��, tYxr.°��l Z �x . �.�
�� . ,���ny^1��� �4.v'S'��,3"� '':✓�'^ � ' _�' �N�` � . � r f s t $e �,:f r �� y F '� , a �,��,:
`r '�C, � R. . �`�. " *�*C, ,°;4 � "S1° ��,I,N� n a �� i.'•� `�'� x .,e o-,{ ����( ��� �. 5 � -
� �;�, � , � �. � *-� X N�. '•y'`� '� � �� � t r � ��
'1� r `'`` � a � K3'�a
���y �E - 1 WH 'h' � � � �
x � -�G`R� s � ^�
, � 1+ ��" ,�. �.� �...g. q. '.'j:
��,i i'ta� � -.� , , � � t ti�fi �` � � Y � v w 4 - � �`r� ''. f�",g �,'%`�� � ;�
��� . . -.:�. = -. V ^ �'n` 1 `�, I 1 i ` � .
_ ��� � . � �'. � � �� �. ,'h. �� ;�'... ,�; Y- ��
-.'"�9 sA e w ' r' ' i .r �v � �.� y r _/ \
`� � � � " �'�^� �rt',� � ��'� �i ` ' � � �` �,r �p '�; _. ��fr'. „ $L ,_ ��''ot/' y
�"M� � n, -'��"r,`^�`+�'r��i ¢L�r'� -•"'"w�� - a ��a �� 4'la, ,, /, G ;,Fs';,�� .
.Fr t' i Qis i s�^�44� r Y � •w ' k.
ys � � �` r'�•r. �k � �F t,�,�.1y-� _,.-� ,� r�
� • • � - .'# � � � ,y� "t'� Y'r -k � � _ �. n � � " , _ +' � , , , .
t � `'S c ai� � ��i .Gr�f�"ti t a �i ��:'��� �� �.v'" �' �.
`-' '� ��„ �a,�' _ �-�� . t j ,,.�i �•�.�-,i���+4�.>r f�.'��y'�� { � � � ` �� x ��. �.
� ,�� j _ ,l �,� '�' ��. �� ', t f " t L A • ` `;
� �; R � - } f.��,'�"� s �` W F � vr�.y� � ' 7 . ^� � ,t°' °
� ,� �` - � ,; ��. .�-�"� a�W,,��,.� `WG� � k �` . :�°�� '�., , ���:r�
t t � `, �y � �. _ TM .. .. � .r ,� �� �^sY . J� 1e� t �f .r�� ; /�- .. � , � i.. � � ' i - "_ �'"����,�� :
� �" � '_'� �'' � l � � ii-;-:. ( �A' � ry t�•� � ^',�'� :��^ Ji 1� � /. ,� `.�,c �'�
�' > �1 # :.�K , � � _ "I�� v�.1r` ��c� y��vy�.: � �: j � ,�'►'�,. � c1i: � �,
� ;� �d �-�r� ,, ,;.a:�' { �_ F � ..J �} l� .��"7 �� '�°�``��.° � "/• E{ ;� � �.� � , '4'�' ; / �,� r��?
k,z- � ����FC' �=� , I �� - . �'S��f:�zWE} '#�Y.` M 4 ��'�� ," . ,``� �}� ��.�
. � � k ' � _� �' � ` � . �1
`d� ; ;� � �f �V �l D�`��, � :f +C",�' � � !` / k � � �
�'' , 1 � .�� * ,� `WB- t� a �
. � � �Y . r � J I� i ti - •g i . .� ' � � � � f � �h� ��
' f:t,. ,r.sr, � , I � _ � � . � , . „y ' , � i .. .- „�_ � ` �� �
�r . � � + . �� � ' y � ..`L �' ', 5��.� �r �! r' 4 � ��`'�r .\ `� y h, ..
� . , � - x a.ar �i,� . r ��������.
s �;.,: .. , ��' a �';< ''�.(3 . ,
�� �� . ' �`` `�l�,�rrr� �� .t R � \ ...� :,5�'_ S rK�� � _ '� I ' {�,�-� � .r. �' ��
r�, _ � . . , - , .
w A � �o .e 1�,t���,' /�A ���i��� � i �i� % .=•.r'a�'S.a.- �F
�_ .. �, �A� i �y. 1� �,�, i � � ' a"�'\ -l-� a�r�, .
1 ..' '��,��,*i1�� r,r'�q�'�„��VVC . ��� •`�� R�'h�r/,'� ti,.. .'� �c�i:
e . j a +�" p; .
� ,�., .y� �:i;� � �4';� � '��,aF �„,,1�. l���� � �r'.� 1• �ie;a � ~ �� �°° T'3q lf V �� '� + t ,�� �, ,�J�{rf Ia sS,�e
. r ,y� �i�"'�`,�; 't a.�,Si �,,.� �.; �' �-., „Y: WA ^�, � .�.: �-� . ,✓ ..
'�'��li� ;�%'��Y,�� �� �� r y i.b . . � ti���� � �,�' �,�}-�J �:��i tt �YF '� y �r,
. �,� ��+ A f �.f
' x 1 2w 'r � � �J� , r. > .
�`< '� a � , 54 , �,'I 7.s�` `8'� ��^ � � � ' , �h 7. � i d + �
��i� & ::,. � :", �.,.�w4... . iv i�� �������'n � /� R�' - �n� ` � � . � � . '` , �. pt'?.�:i
'`��"' ��'' ,_,.� ssan-` %'i � t��'. t � , f / '4 ' V v Q d '�" '1 �
ka' �:�0 �r , :�i',� , .,af� �. J ,� F � u � �r'� � +�. • .'� W N'����
.�Jy � ��t � +1 �t � 5 �" ,� x� C�sk � t �, �. d i��• .° �4! `i�8 ^ .
��� � � ` i � ,M � 6i�' y � �.. .
i u ,y� . ,«�i u, . . � e , se ��)�' ,..
� ,M '�` , ,y � - � ' : �y �� 4� f, * � �� ..� .
w��� � �r p.. I�� i��� '� j e��A�� �� � ,C`.�d� L -� '-, t�•gy�.+ � � • 7 W�,�� _L�` �'' -
'�. , i.1'�� -�.ar,�_ - , �..�,. ,'sn _ .i i �, , :.• ._�� ' n �l+��,�y� �` . s° '^� '` , . L t� f •i� �'�� ' �.xi'
t a A � . p � �'i . $ �
,�,t ;.+'� � r^� . � ;WP �'' �'r L� � �;�� � r n.,r.#`,,
�.����'` ,� �`� � • w - r� - „ ` ��'' � ,`�,s�, � . r .
Le end � ��"�� '�-° ��; �• �� .�w; � �� > � �� =�
� "1�� � ..'..�� ���'W r��h� Y/'_� �?{ :�l l> . Pi i':� k�... � �r .:�••_
��` � f {.:�s,�t � *ti r 1_ , .r-c, .�� �',�'� <t
Streams ^!� ,� E. '�""�L ' � .-` , .�; �` "`"wM,� ;� � ��Y�.h� � , „.
��� y � n y �C„� fl` � �, �,y ,_ � R �*. �x }, � ' '�� � q1w ,`t
Wetlands �- ,r � ��' ,��'�'� �r � � � �� � . �� , n:.�'� ���1 �("�„ "'S , G. ,� -=k';T. y��y
<�
��' . � �.y f 'j� ":. � ; '� y r � '� ✓.� :
�rd �d.y�� � : . : �< 4 !p. � k ' 7Q �'�i�i 0 % 'i'
�� �i� . �.i h ,�< 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Phase I Project Area �'�' �' �' `�,�, ,� ��� � ,�, � �
�� h � ��� � r �`� �,� Feet
� Project Study Area � '�� � y `� � ¢3,� � z •, � .
L 1�'�.�,,;��" � nl�t On�P�,��o NC��{,Fni ���"oi .����i-�,tic Info'rr�iatioo� �nd/�n'a'�lysis, NC 91�1�, f�
,.¢r :liti �' j+' r,�`" '�+; -
- r �� ��'� W'B�-�ict � �
` �4 �4 ��*.� �'
f��'� �ti�����. Figure 3: Jurisdictional Features Map
r:�,
� . '� ��'� TIP U-5828
j , ,. � i�„
�� ,� t! NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) - Phase I I
ti� = Town of Morrisville, Wake County, NC
�,,�� , , ;��l��r

• � �, .
� �\ WsB2�'�;., . CrC2. .CtC \ '� N
�� � � � �� CrC2 \\��' `1 VJsB2 CrC2 Gm •
� r� ` I - - --- � ' iP k F ��- �
�CrC2 � CrC2 . � �+ o CrC2 �'' \ ���
CrF32 '� �`L f,i1 � \
` � �� � Cr�i2 i � �.
`�- � �^ �y Ws�i2 Ws�2
. sG ' �__ '
. � CrE / _s_ � �� - �`�P
���, � MyC2 �-�—__—a_-- =. �_ w$ Z,; _�� � � .
,;� CrC2 '� 1' — ` MfE' �
V f � �/!� ``'�, "� / � �ti
.,
��� Uu �l � '�J+JY _/'� ��. ii WvD3 / c
�,WsB2 / e' °,/� CrC2\ .��ti � =—m- ��.• �'."�
\�. MyB2 ,/,�WsB2 �. �� f� S � �� CrC2
�•, � �
, .
`, ;= ._ �� ` l�,� 1 f CrB2
f/ �m s62
\,�`,�\ • ,sy � r"��Cr�2 -- ...�. \ CrB2
�y ;�• M � '. �' CrC2 �..,
��`� �, vCZ � � � N1sC2 � � .. . � , .
� � I i _ ' � .
� �� 41fvD3 .'T��' "� . `'rCrC2
Cr'�2 ., . � .
r�2 '. h`SG� ��'� � — / �Y � C�B2 Gr62 �f C�
`�� �,`k� � s - • � � , /
� �5 .� .�ysC � f j � ;
� `'�' ' �' CrC2 � � ,;
���' �tC Gu W'sB2 --��, �+ WsB2 / � `
.,.
/ �`�� / f �
rC2 f � =
y ; MY�2 � �`� ,,' � � J� ' /�./
a
\ f � WsC � 'W's�2
, �� ,
� �, � , �,
`i� crBz r �/' �. '� % �
� CrC2 �''%Y �,
� �\ � WvD3 . �
.1� -� � >
� � CPC2
5
' � Y � � .—� . _ 47': C �'1 � l
-J , 2, c�+�
� C �. ' �/} � i
�4'� c� �r�2 f � 1�1 v / NJ C2 C r E �'7� 1Ns B
� .,�y s � Ct6
1'�,
� : s`e � CtB � C#C
' i ,
\ '�� ��
t . �Q''t�,, �s��, � �� \` ..� CrE �
�v CrC2 :� " �1y CrC2 � CrC2 . � . ` % AfA
1
r
`��, . ��, � �, mvBz \., ; �
\� r�32 1�, " B � .,
TIP U-5828 - NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) - Phase II ' �'�
NRCS Soil Survey of Wake County �
Map Unit Soil Unit Name Hydric �
AfB Altavista fine sandy loam(0-6% slopes, rarely flooded) Incl. � ��
CmA Chewacla sandy loam (0-2% slopes, frequently Flooded) Incl. �"
CrB2 Creedmoor sandy loam (2-6% slopes, moderately eroded) N '°'� �. � `,=
CrC2 Creedmoor sandy loam (6-0% slopes, moderately eroded) N
CrE Creedmoorsandyloam(10-20%slopes) N ,�f% Leqend
CtB Creedmoor silt loam (2-6% slopes) N
CtC Creedmoor silt loam (6-10% slopes) N __ - � Project Study Area
PtD3 Polkton-White Store complex (2-15% slopes, severely eroded) N
WhA Warne fine sandy loam (0-2% slopes, occasionally flooded) Incl.
WsB2 White Store sandy loam (2-6% slopes, moderately eroded) N „ ,� o00 2 000
WsC2 White Store sandy loam (6-10% slopes, moderately eroded) N � ' Feet
WyA Worsham sandy loam (0-3% slopes) Y
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey
TIP U-5828
NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) - Phase II
Town of Morrisville, Wake County, NC

_ a ; ��. _� , �.
=-3-••� ; �" r� � J;'.
, �` �� 9 ' � :. ..�a�,1rtti i��5� . N
� . . �� i ��� . T..� . .� �i�•:�r�. . �disih� ,��S +� �A\
. !^, . ' . . . , ` ���P. � \
� r \1
� .�iu �. , . . . � _.. O -.,�, � 1
1 �
F =fl�
_ �_ � � -- - \ly�..
� �.. f�rl
�.-�t
,�,.,.- � � �
� �' ., �
� ��
q- : � L �,:�T . �. - , . . . � - �
l
. . . . . . . ' ' ti��lY"�s�u�,a'� � •
-'� + .. . . . . _ ` .. ,
1 I �' . ��6` �1r�._ .
k `'�"'`,,.. . r�
.� � ` �� - . � ° �r �':' :. . �r,; 4 .�+ .`'
�. � 'ir°rs �, q"� iA � �� � .'
; a r }X�t �.r y� ,. b � ° :"� '�,;� �*y� �
—�= - '` � ,���y�M . ' . . � `[ �� � ` , w �°"
�. �-�e''Gx �- �' 'I y;�' � q'J �}s' ' :t
-�l � 1 .�6 ��
+ � .�' r'- ��� i i!-- °, �` �N . ,.. �^y. 4 ,+�y�' . s�
� ` �� ,r�it� � � �o- ,��,";_" �. �� ��
. ,.6 ,"i�jt�; #' ��d+ . -�y � �� Y �,ru� � ,�.
� ' �, � 4 � 1 . � . � � '�f�. ,,� �7 •�F� Y � 'c�•��� i .
� � ! � � , 4F�
,� �:, � � � � ��� - �r ,�
`�6 ,i � r, 1� . .�r � �. � .� I� ..
a
"'�1 �� ':-}-�, � � ..- �'. i . . � . .. . ,. �� � r�.� � 4��` : .
. � � _ ,T� ,� �� �
-, � L .� ,
a '�''�� t _,� �
'� 1 �f - �. � 'I---� ,�«s��r:�'" ,,?`.
� �I j"�.�►!1„ fi �r-•�_�m.. ,yz.., 1 f , �--1 ; yv'�� +�+_ . 9. �'a
` �� z . . . ...a _,. - �, . _ ` � �,,x j� ��
:+�s l �,� ��. , ; � `, r�i,-
-C " :�ll`„_`- �� - �� � . . !" `�.•-, � . .�•�
- � . ' � � . - I �� ' . �
-ti �
. J i
i�e , � - , � � �l,��L i.� ?'�''�a.� � .. •
� � ('
q� r�,`��,�r-� �,�.. ' � � _ . �_ � ,,, °+, �
�f _ +:? rl' " _ _ �� �,
' �'� : " _� I _ �`- � .� � V N+4�a,..
e�- - , �;�1 �� ' ft4e.r:.... . . — - i -�a
� � .
�� "t �� ' ' .rt� . . , � � � n`��
9 � 1 m � ,` �
,. 'Y � s4 ;' �it . - -� ,4 . '. : Y✓ _ - ���` . .. - .��A,,,.
, �. fl � ! �,,
� .�,� " . � , :t.-,, � �!.
' �� �J d _. . � _ _ �C , a;:"°�.�.,�h'�
y� ��q M " .,d,s...r' M
��� �: �`- : ��'iqi j `� �� __ _u.LS :..�._ _ ' . � _ - � _ - �� � � �� � j'� . . �
�� �".'�� � �F � � ^`�% � .- il J � � %'
A �� �' N . . „„s•�..s.^ �
i `:i ti 1 �;;+,��'rre'�`°s-r,� Y � i' '_ - - 'i � �
s
'., ���� � : '� �y� .� aa� �`� 's �,� '`u°... , � •r° � -��, F
y ��.-1 Y�qq�� Nr.�����►.������s '�a� ,�;�� I , j,'�
� ` � � ��•�
� '���, �jp �, � -,� �j
�Y� 1, "t �,� � �- (Y'S k � _ A ��'�1�._.` ;�r��"'' f � ' ' - .. � . '. .
�F � ,^='� Ci-�,,»�'��',"� �� {•�W�' � '8"'`'�s �
� e1 �� �/1 � - ' d;� ay✓� ,�j(� ♦
��' ,��� .6 ` :�e��i, �/ ' + �
���t°��!- � ��'��e� '�:. �� � �
�^I " �,'{rZ�l.�� .��iG,/ � �':� ��� \�!� �"J ��
.�y � ,, � � �
: f �� a ..
Leqend �- � ���'-
�'0�`���.,`?.�i � �
Affected Parcels `�,\�,: ��
d
Wake Property Parcels (April 2016) ���' �� ,�' 0 850 1,700
�,:� ��y � � Feet
� Project Study Area �r � " �
• �' NC OneMap, NC i;ent�r for Geographic l�zt"orr�7ation and /�,nalysis, NC 911
���'��:.: . . ti
�� ='��,. Board
'+��` ���)�'�'r,�. Figure 5: Property Parcels MaK
^��'`''+/��'i;�,��
TIP U-582�
NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) - Phase I
Town of Morrisville, Wake County, N(

Figure 5: Affected Property Parcel Table
LABEL PIN WAKE REID OWNER ADDRESS
1 756145352 229476 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PARTNERS LLC 1205 KINGS GRANT DR RALEIGH NC 27614-9355
2 756241238 229475 EXETER 120 TRANS AIR LLC EXETER PROPERTY GROUP 140 W GERMANTOWN PIKE PLYMOUTH MEETING
STE 150 PA 19462-1434
3 756247178 250686 ROI INVESTMENTS LLC 503 SPENCOR MILL RD MORRISVILLE NC 27560-6769
4 756337955 120797 MORRISVILLE ASSOCIATES LLC NATHAN, LIZA 31 CORN CRIB LN ROSIYN HEIGHTS NY 11577-2622
5 756330565 74739 AIS FORESTRY & FARMING, LLC STEPHENS ENTERPRISES, LLC 319 CHAPANOI<E RD STE 102 RALEIGH NC 27603-3433
6 756235875 74760 AIR PARK ASSOCIATES C/0 JOHN MCCONNELL 4080 BARRETT DR RALEIGH NC 27609-6631
7 756135833 227730 DOUGLAS I. STEPHENS AND CYNTHIA M. STEPHENS 319 CHAPANOKE RD STE 102 RALEIGH NC 27603-3433
IRREVO STEPHENS ENTERPRISES, LLC
8 756136651 74740 MAL PROPERTIES LLC THE STEPHENS CENTER INC 319 CHAPANOI<E RD STE 102 RALEIGH NC 27603-3433
9 756230220 74741 MAL PROPERTIES LLC CENTRAL CAROLINA REALTY INC 319 CHAPANOKE RD STE 102 RALEIGH NC 27603-3433
10 756134625 113766 DOUGLAS I. STEPHENS AND CYNTHIA M. STEPHENS 319 CHAPANOI<E RD STE 102 RALEIGH NC 27603-3433
IRREVO STEPHENS ENTERPRISES, LLC
11 756323768 46323 CCF PROPERTIES LLC MCLEOD, B F JR PO BOX 18902 RALEIGH NC 27619-8902
12 756420816 58457 ADAMS, RODERICK D 1R TRUSTEE ZILKHA, NAZIM TRUSTEE 1116 SILVER OAKS CT RALEIGH NC 27614-9359
13 756410733 435002 AMMONS EAST CORPORATION 140 AMMONS DR RALEIGH NC 27615-6501
14 756216570 277202 STEPHENS ENTERPRISES LLC 319 CHAPANOKE RD STE 102 RALEIGH NC 27603-3433
15 756401266 92188 PEACE, SUSAN S LANDT, MARTHA S WILLIAM H SPRUNT JR 5815 JUNALUSKA RD BOONE NC 28607-7573
16 755396968 259552 A&1 WHITE LLC JT HOBBY & SON INC PO BOX 18506 RALEIGH NC 27619-8506
17 755388866 259551 A&J WHITE LLC JT HOBBY & SON INC PO BOX 18506 RALEIGH NC 27619-8506
18 755296685 224474 AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION ATTN: TAX DEPT PO BOX 6827 DOTHAN AL 36302-6827
19 755384945 22958 ISLAMIC ASSOCIATION OF RALEIGH 3020 LIGON ST RALEIGH NC 27607-5308
20 755497860 195811 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LIMITED EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOTrSDALE AZ 85261-4900
21 755591753 219728 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOITSDALE AZ 85261-4900
22 755595805 219729 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOTrSDALE AZ 85261-4900
23 755598399 231002 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LTD PTRNRP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOITSDALE AZ 85261-4900
24 755585894 269862 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LTD PRTNSHP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOTrSDALE AZ 85261-4900
25 755584219 269863 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LTD PRTNSHP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOTrSDALE AZ 85261-4900
26 755589312 242068 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PK LMTD PRTNSHP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOTrSDALE AZ 85261-4900
27 756800223 99039 WAKE COUNTY WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PO BOX 550 RALEIGH NC 27602-0550
28 755571774 34771 MORRISVILLE THEYS STONE LLC 9415 NC HIGHWAY 57 ROUGEMONT NC 27572-8873
29 755462762 14339 MORRISVILLE TOWN OF PO BOX 166 MORRISVILLE NC 27560-0166
30 755368982 93359 HOOKS, MARIAN P 337 AVIATION PKWY MORRISVILLE NC 27560-9152
31 755470031 94699 ATLAS NC PROPERTIES LLC 1016 CLEAR CREEK FARM DR RALEIGH NC 27615-2244
32 755470393 135062 ROSE NC II LLC 9050 PINES BLVD STE 301 PEMBROKE PINES F133024-6442
33 755485334 34773 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LTD PTNRP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOITSDALE AZ 85261-4900
34 755591143 219726 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOTrSDALE AZ 85261-4900
35 755497184 219727 SOUTHPORT BUSINESS PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EPROPERTY TAX DEPT #117 PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261-4900

STREAM AND WETLAND
DATA FORMS

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/14/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.835992
Stream SA
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.818792
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 37 Stream Determination (c' Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial e.g. Quad Name: C81y QUBd
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 20 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 3
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 1
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 7
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SA is a large bottomland stream with multiple smaller
streams emptying into it. There was approximately 1-2' of water in Stream SA
during site visit and the stream had obvious flow. Several frogs were observed
in or near the stream. There was no rain recorded within 96 hours of the site
visit.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �� �,�
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
i. Applicant°s namf Town of Morrisville 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluatio 05/14/2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'eal'Tl SA
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluatic 4:37 pm
6. River basin: NeUSe
7. Approximate drainage area: 436 aCreS 8. Stream orde: S2COIld OI'd21'
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO feet 10. coun�y: Wake County
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
La�tude �eX. 34.s�z3 �z�: 35.835992 Lon�tude �eX. -��.ss66� 1�: -78 • 818792
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GISQJther GIS�ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The portion of stream SA that is west from wetland WD and north of the intersection of streams SA and SB
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
is. Re�em weatner �ona�t�ons: Temperature between 58 and 92 degrees Farenheit with clear dry conditions.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: �=1P�1'� tPmnPr�t��rP in thP hiah f��'� F�hrPnhPit,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use
22. Bankfull width: 12-1 S�
_% Residential 25 % Commercial 25 % Industrial _% Agricultural
40 % Forested 10 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4-6�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends ✓�Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 58 Comments:
Stream SA is a large bottomland stream with multiple smaller streams emptying into it. There was approximately 1-2' of water_
in Stream SA during site visit and the stream had obvious flow. Several frogs were observed in or near the stream. There was_
no rain recorded witnin yb nours ofi the site visit.
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� DateOS/14/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Strea m SA
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 1
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 2
,� Presence of adjacent floodplain
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2 3
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 3
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 4
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 3
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or wideninQ
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
F" Presence of major bank failures
� i3 o—s o—s o—s 3
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 3
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 3
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
� Canopy coverage over streambed
Q�s o—s o—s o—s 4
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 3
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 �
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
23 0—( 0-5 0-5 �
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 58
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/14/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.836133
Stream SB
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.819510
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 28.5 Stream Deter ' ' (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemera ntermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: C81y QUBd
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 2
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 1
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 1
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SB is a small stream that flows into stream A. Observed
many frogs and a few water striders in the stream. No flow was observed in the
stream but pools of water (6"-1' deep) were present at time of site visit. NC
CRONOS records show no rain within 96 hours of the site visit.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �� �,�
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
i. Applicant's name:TOwn Of MOrrlSvllle 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: OS�14�2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'2aC1'1 SB
7. Approximate drainage area: 3O ACI'eS
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude �eX. 34.s�a3i2�: 35.836133
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 4:40 pm
6. River basin: NeUSe
8. Stream orde: FII'St OI'd21'
io. coun�y: Wake County
12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
. Lon�itude �eX. —��.ss66i 1�: -78.819510
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GISQJther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The evaluated length of reach begins approximately 50' west of the intersection of SA and SB across the sewer easement.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
is. Re�em weatner �ona�t�ons: Temperature between 58 and 92 degrees Farenheit with clear dry conditions.
16. Site conditions at time of vis��: Cleal'; temperature in the high $0's Fahrenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial 70 % Industrial _% Agricultural
30 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends �Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 54 Comments:
Stream SB is a small stream that flows into stream A. Observed many frogs and a few water striders in the stream. No flow_
was observed in the stream but pools of water (6"-1' deep) were present at time of site visit. NC CRONOS records show no _
rain within 96 hours of the site visit.
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� DateOS/14/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SB
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 2
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 3
,� Presence of adjacent floodplain
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2 3
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 2
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 2
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 3
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or wideninQ
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
F" Presence of major bank failures
� i3 o-s o-s o-s 3
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 2
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 3
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q l8 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 3
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 1
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
23 0—( 0-5 0-5 �
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 54
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/24/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.836076
Stream SD
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.817843
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 29.5 Stream Dete ' ' circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemer Intermitten erennial e.g. Quad Name: Cary Quad
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 20.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 2
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 2
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 1
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 0
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SD is a first order stream that begins downhill from wetland
WB and empties into stream SA. No water was observed in the stream's
channel during the site visit. The stream is sinuous and gets obvious flow
during precipitation events.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �� �,�
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
i. Applicant's name�TOwn Of MOrrlSvllle 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: O5/24/2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'2aC1'1 SD
7. Approximate drainage area: 1S aCl'eS
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO f2et
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude �eX. 34.s�a3i2�: 35.836076
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 10:55 am
6. River basin: NeUSe
8. Stream order:, FII'St OI'd21'
io. coun�y: Wake County
12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
. Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66i 1�: -78.817843
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GISQJther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The length of reach evaluated begins at the confluence of Streams SC and SD and continues towards Stream SA
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
15. Recent weather conditions: No rain within one week of field evaluation. Temperature between 45 and 88 degrees Farenheit.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SUC1Cly, clear, with temperatures in the high 70's Farenheit.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NQ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use
22. Bankfull width: 4�
_% Residential 10 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
70 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends �Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 50 Comments:
Stream SD is a first order stream that begins downhill from wetland WB and empties into stream SA. No water was observed_
in the stream's channel during the site visit. The stream is sinuous and gets obvious flow during precipitation events.
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� DateOS/24/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SD
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 �
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 2
Presence of adjacent floodplain 3
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 1
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 2
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 4
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 3
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 2
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
F" Presence of major bank failures
� 13 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 3
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 2
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q�s o-s o-s o-s 4
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 2
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 �
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
23 0—( 0-5 0-5 1
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 50
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/14/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.838591
Stream SE
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.818951
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 26.5 Stream Deter ' ' (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemera ntermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: C81y QUBd
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 2
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 0
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 2
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 4.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SE is downstream of wetlands WG and WF. No water was
observed in stream during site visit. One crayfish chimney was observed, but
no other evidence of aquatic life was observed during visit. Approximately 96
hours since last precipitation event (NC CRONOS).

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �� �,�
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
i. Applicant's name:TOwn Of MOrrlSvllle 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: O5/14/2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'2aC1'1 SE
7. Approximate drainage area: 1S aCl'eS
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Larituae �eX. 34.s�23i2�: 35.838591
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 3:20 pm
6. River basin: NeUSe
8. Stream orde: FII'St OI'd21'
io. coun�y: Wake County
12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
. Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66i 1�: -78.818951
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GISQJther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The length of reach that begins at the southern end of wetlands WF and WG and continues ofF the site.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
is. Reoent weather oonditions: Temperature between 58 and 92 degrees Farenheit with no precipitation in 4 days
16. s�te �ona�t�ons at t�me of�S�t: Sunny and clear with temperatures in the high 80's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
40 % Forested 60 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 2-q'� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends �Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 46 Comments:
Stream SE is downstream of wetlands WG and WF. No water was observed in stream during site visit. One crayfish chimney_
was observed, but no other evidence of aquatic life was observed during visit. Approximately 96 hours since last precipitation_
event (NC CRONOS).
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� DateOS/14/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SE
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 �
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 Q
Presence of adjacent floodplain 1
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 3
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 1
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 1
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
F" Presence of major bank failures
� i3 o-s o-s o-s 3
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 2
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 3
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q�s o-s o-s o-s 4
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 3
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 1
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
23 0—( 0-5 0-5 �
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 46
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/14/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.839035
Stream SF
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.817993
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 2�.5 Stream Deter ' ' (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemera ntermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: C81y QUBd
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 16.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 2
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 1
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 2
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = g
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SF appears to be a headwater stream that experiences flow
during precipitation events. NC CRONOS records show no rain within 96 hours
of the site visit. No water/flow was observed in the stream and the bed
appeared dry. Portions of the stream are deeply incised (4'). Stream SF turns
to wetland WF where the topoaraphv flattens out.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
� STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET � ,�.,
�� �
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
i. Applicant's name:TOwn Of MOrrlSvllle 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: O5/14/2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'2dC1'1 SF
7. Approximate drainage area: 6 aCl'eS
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude �eX. 34.s�a3i2�: 35.839035
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 3:00 pm
6. River basin: NeUSe
8. Stream order:, FII'St OI'd21'
io. coun�y: Wake County
12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
. Longitude�eX.-��.ss66i1�: -78•817993
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GIS�Jther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The length of reach from the intersection of stream SF and wetland WF to the east for 100'
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
is. Reoent weacher oonditions: Temperature between 58 and 92 degrees Farenheit with no precipitation in 4 days
16. s�te �ona�t�ons at t�me of�S�t: Sunny and clear with temperatures in the high 80's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters � Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
30 % Forested 70 % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends �Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 45 Comments:
Stream SF appears to be a headwater stream that experiences flow duringprecipitation events. NC CRONOS records show no
rain within 96 hours of the site visit. No water/flow was observed in the stream and the bed appeared dry. Portions of the
stream are deep�l r incised �l. Stream SF turns to wetland WF where the topoaraphy flattens out.
�
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� DateOS/14/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SF
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 �
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 Q
Presence of adjacent floodplain 1
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 2
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 1
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 3
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 2
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
F" Presence of major bank failures
� i3 o-s o-s o-s 3
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 2
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 2
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q�s o-s o-s o-s 4
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 2
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 �
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
z3 o-c o-s o-s 3
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 45
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/13/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.846240
Stream SG
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.819422
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 24.25 Stream Deter ' ' (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemera ntermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: C81y QUBd
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 2
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 1
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 1
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = g
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0.75
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SG is downstream from wetland WI. Leaf litter in stream
channel. Sphagnum moss and some Juncus in the stream channel. Some of
the leaf litter/vegetation had sediment deposits. No water/flow observed in the
stream at time of site visit. NC CRONOS recorded no precipitation within 72
hours prior to the site visit.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �� �,�
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
i. Applicant's name:TOwn Of MOrrlSvllle 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 05/13/2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'2aC1'1 SG
7. Approximate drainage area: $ aCl'eS
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO f2et
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Larituae �eX. 34.s�23i2�: 35.846240
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 12:52 pm
6. River basin: NeUSe
8. Stream order:, FII'St OI'd21'
io. coun�y: Wake County
12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
. Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66i 1�: -78.819422
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GISQJther GIS�ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Lenght of reach evaluated from the intersection of stream SG and wetland WI east to 100'.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
is. Reoent weather oonditions: Temperature between 58 and 92 degrees Farenheit with no precipitation in 3 days
16. s�te �ona�t�ons at t�me of��_.. Sunny and clear with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
90 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends �Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 43 Comments:
Stream SG is downstream from wetland WI. Leaf litter in stream channel. Sphagnum moss and some Juncus in the stream _
channel. Some of the leaf litter/vegetation had sediment deposits. No water/flow observed in the stream at time of site visit._
NC CRONOS recorded no precipitation within 72 hours prior to the site visit.
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� Date05/13/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SG
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 �
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 Q
Presence of adjacent floodplain 1
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 1
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 1
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 3
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 1
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 3
F" Presence of major bank failures
� i3 o-s o-s o-s 3
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 3
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 2
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q�s o-s o-s o-s 4
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 2
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 �
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
23 0—( 0-5 0-5 �
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 43
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/13/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.848547
Stream SH
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.821141
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 23 Stream Deter ' ' (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemera ntermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: C81y QUBd
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 2
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 1
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 1
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 5.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SH begins at wetland seepage WJ and flows northeast off
of the site. No water/flow present in stream at time of site visit. One crayfish
chimney was observed in the streambed. NC CRONOS recorded no
precipitation within 72 hours prior to the site visit.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ��,�.
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �
i. Applicant's name�TOwn Of MOrrlSvllle 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 05/13/2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'2aC1'1 SH
7. Approximate drainage area: $ aCl'eS
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Larituae �eX. 34.s�a3i2�: 35.848547
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 11:30 am
6. River basin: NeUSe
8. Stream order:, FII'St OI'd21'
io. coun�y: Wake County
12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
. Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66i 1�: -78.821141
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GISQJther GIS�ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The length of reach evaluated begins where stream SH intersects wetland WJ and continues northeast towards project boundary
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
is. Reoent weather oonditions: Temperature between 58 and 92 degrees Farenheit with no precipitation in 3 days
16. s�te �ona�t�ons at t�me of�S�t: Sunny and clear with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.5 aCl"@S
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use
22. Bankfull width: 3�
1� % Residential
5� % Forested
_% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged 40 % Other ( SI IVICUItUI'aI �
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends ✓�Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 46 Comments:
Stream SH begins at wetland seepa4e WJ and flows northeast off of the site. No water/flow present in stream at time of site
visit. One cra�sh chimney was observed in the streambed. NC CRONOS recorded no precipitation within 72 hours prior to
the site visit.
�
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� Date05/13/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SH
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 �
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 4
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 1
Presence of adjacent floodplain 1
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 2
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 1
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 1
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 2
F" Presence of major bank failures
� i3 o-s o-s o-s 3
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 1
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 1
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q�s o-s o-s o-s 4
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 2
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 1
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
23 0—( 0-5 0-5 2
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 46
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 5/13/2014 ProjecUSite: NC 54 Bypass Latitude: 35.829614
Stream SK
Evaluator: B� Reed (KHa), County: Wake County Longitude: -78.817219
R. Sullivan (KHA)
Total Points: 23.5 Stream Deter ' ' (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral termittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: Cary Quad
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 9.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 0
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple 0 1 2 3 1
pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 0
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 1
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
11. Second or reater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 1
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SK begins at culvert outlet of culvert that crosses under
Aviation Parkway north of the intersection of Aviation Pkwy. and Clements Rd.
Stream SK is a linear stream incised to nearly 4' and may have been channelized
historically.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
� STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ��,�.,
�� �
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: �,
i. Applicant's name�TOwn Of MOrrlSvllle 2 E 1 � . B. Reed (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 05/13/2014
5. Name of stream: Stl'2aC1'1 SK
7. Approximate drainage area: 1S aCl'eS
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1OO f2et
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Larituae �eX. 34.s�23i2�: 35.829614
. va uatar s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 2:52 pm
6. River basin: NeUSe
8. Stream order:, FII'St OI'd21'
io. coun�y: Wake County
12. Subdivision name (if any): n�a
. Lon�itude �eX. -��.ss66i 1�: -78.817219
Method location determined (circle): ✓�'7PS0✓ I'opo Shee ✓t�rtho (Aerial) Photo/GIS�Jther GIS�ther
13. Location of reacb under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The length of reach evaluated begins at the culvert outlet of culvert that flows under Aviation Pkwy. north of intersection Aviation Pkwy/Clements Rd.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n�a
is. Reoent weather oonditions: Temperature between 58 and 92 degrees Farenheit with no precipitation in 3 days
16. s�te �ona�t�ons at t�me of�S�t: Sunny and clear with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,�Section 10 �Tidal Waters �Essential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters �Outstanding Resource Waters ,� Nutrient Sensitive Waters nWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 100 0�o Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3.5�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: �Flat (0 to 2%) �Gentle (2 to 4%) �Moderate (4 to 10%) �Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: �Straight �Occasional bends �Frequent meander �Very sinuous �Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scares 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): 38 Comments:
Stream SK begins at culvert outlet of culvert that crosses under Aviation Parkway north of the intersection of Aviation Pkwy.
and Clements Rd. Stream SK is a linear stream incised to nearly 4' and may have been channelized historically.
�
Evaluator's Signature ���'' �� Date05/13/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SK
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
� (no flow or sahiration = 0; strong flow = max points) 0— � 0— 4 0— 5 �
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0— 6 0— 5 0— 5 1
(extensive alteration = 0; i�o �lteration = �nax �oints)
Riparian zone
3 (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) Q— C 0— 4 0— 5 3
Evidence of nutrient or chemical clischarges
4 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = rnax points)
,� Groundwater discharge
� � (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 4 1
Presence of adjacent floodplain 3
�, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2
� � Entrenchment / floodplain access 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 1
A" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
� no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0— 6 0— 4 0— 2 Q
Channel sinuosity
9 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; nahiral meander = max oints)
� � Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 1
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sedimei�t = max poii�ts)
�� Size & �liversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0— 4 0— 5 2
(fine, homogei�ous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+ �� (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banl<s = max points) 0— 5 0— 4 0— 5 1
F" Presence of major bank failures
� 13 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
� (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banlcs = max poiuts)
�Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots = 0; de��se roots throughout = max points) 0— 3 0— 4 0— 5 3
F
� Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poii�ts)
16 Presence of riftle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0— 3 0— 5 0— 6 1
� no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max points)
Q Habitat complexity
�, 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
� (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
Q�s o-s o-s o-s 5
� (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cai�opy = max poii�ts)
� 9 Substrate emUeddedness NA* 0— 4 0— 4 3
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose sn�uchire = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
ir
�� (no evidence = 0; common, n�i�nerous rypes = max points) 0— 4 0— � 0— 5 �
� Presence of amphibians
21 0-4 0-4 0-4 �
O (no evidence = 0; conwlon, nun�erous rypes = inax points)
0 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 �
m (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of'wildlife use
23 0—( 0-5 0-5 �
(no evide��ce = 0; abundant evide��ce = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 38
* These c{�aracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/24/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WA-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Hillside Local relief (concave, convex none Slope (o�o�: 4- 6%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P �at: 35.834633 �ong: '78•816938 �atum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Creedmoor Sandy Loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Data point collected on hillside slope approximately 20' south and 2' higher in elevation than the
wetland data point WA-WET. There was no rain recorded according to the CRONOS database within
7 days of the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): �20��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No �20 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No evidence of sustained surface or groundwater hydrology to depth of 20+ inches. No indicators
of hydrology observed within 20" of the soil profile. The water table and soil saturation was not
observed at the time of completing the data form.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Quercus alba 20% Y FACU
2�Quercus falcata 15% Y FACU
g Liquidambar styraciflua 15% Y FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum
Z �Liquidambar styraciflua
3 �Oxydendrum arboreum
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% = Total Cover
5% Y
5% Y
_ 2%- -N
12% = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis Rotundifolia 5%
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
FAC
FAC
UPL
Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WA-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 66%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
No morphological indicators of hydrology observed on the vegetation at this data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WA-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 5/4 100% Loam
4- 8" 10YR 6/4 100% Loam
8- 12" 10YR 7/5 100% Clay Loam
12 - 20 10YR 6/6 100% Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) � Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) � Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of hydric soil observed at this data point. The water table and soil saturation was not
observed within 20" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5�24�12
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WA-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Topographic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): 2- 4%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.834728 �ong: '78•81694 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: �'reeam00C SdCIqY LOdlll NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Topographic low area that carries sustained surface flows during rainfall events as well as
groundwater interception. There was no rain recorded according to the CRONOS database within 7
days of the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
✓ Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 20��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No � 20 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No rainfall within a week of field visit; thus no evidence of surface water or saturation. Soils are
moist at the surface. The water table and soil saturation was not observed within 20" of the soil
profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�.Liquidambarstyraciflua 30% Y FAC
2�Quercus phellos 20% Y FAC
g Acer rubrum 10% N FAC
q�Nyssa sylvatica 10% N FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum
Z �Liquidambar styraciflua
3 �Nyssa sylvatica
4. Viburnum dentatum
5 �Quercus phellos
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5�
� Microstegium
Z. Onoclea sensibi?is
3. Athyrium asplenioides
4 . Carex sp.
5.Boehmeria cylindrica
F Juncus effusus
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia
2,Toxicodendron radicans
3.Smila� rotundifolia
4.
5.
6.
70°�o = Total Cover
10% Y FAC
10% Y FAC
5% N FAC
5% N FAC
5% N FAC
35% = Total Cover
30% Y FAC
20% Y FACW
20% Y FAC
10% N FAC
5% N FACW
5% N FACW
90% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
2% Y FAC
12% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WA-W�
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
The wetland area had a distinct vegetation change in herbaceous plants compared to the nearby hillslopes. There was
an abundance of hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation growing in the wetland area, while the hillslopes had less
�---�---- -
ner�ace�us veyeiaii��i.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 2" 10YR 4/4 100% Loam
2- 6" 10YR 6/3 85% 10YR 6/6 15% C M Clay Loam
6- 20" 10 YR 7/2 50% 10YR 6/6 50% C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surtace (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
8 Umbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 20" of the soil surface. However,
the soil was moist to the touch throughout and a depleted matrix was observed beginning at 6" in
the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/24/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WB-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d, R. Sullivan section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Convex Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.836S8S Long: -78•817026 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: White Store sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Data pont is on an upland hillslope and lies approximately 10' north and 2' higher in elevation from
the wetland data point. The area has been disturbed by timber operations. There was no rain
recorded according to the CRONOS database within 7 days of the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 18��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No � 18 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No direct/secondary indicators of surface/groundwater hydrology were observed to a depth of 18".
The water table and soil saturation was not observed at the time of data form completion.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�.Liquidambarstyraciflua 15% Y FAC
z. Acer rubrum 15% Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
30% = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum 10%
Z �Liquidambar styraciflua 10%
3 �Pinus taeda 5%
4. Rubus argutus 2%
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
�. Dichanthelium Sp.
Z. Rubus argutus
g �Eupatorium capillifolium
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Y FAC
Y FAC
N FAC
N FACU
27% = Total Cover
10% Y FAC
�qi y Fnri i
5% Y FACU
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis Rotundifolia 5%
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
= Total Cover
Y FAC
= Total Cover
Sampling Point: WB-�P
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: � (B)
Percent of Dominant Species ] 1.4%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WB-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 3" 10YR 6/4 100% Loam
3- 10" 10YR 6/6 100% Loam
10 - 18" 10YR 6/4 50% 10YR 6/6 50% Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surtace (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of soil hydrology was observed at the time of data form completion.
Neither soil saturation nor the water table was observed within 18" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/24/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WB-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Topographic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.83648 �ong: '78•816985 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Wnite 5tore sandy ioam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Wetland WB-WET is a headwater system that hydrologically discharges into stream (SD).
According to the CRONOS database, no rain was recorded within 7 days of the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 20��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No � 20 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No rainfall within week prior to data form evaluation; soils moist at surface to 20" but not
saturated. Wetland hydrology is likely from overland flow from surrounding hillslopes and
groundwater.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum 15% Y FAC
2. Liquidambar styraciflua 15% Y FAC
g Oxydendrum arboreum 5% N UPL
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
35% = Total Cover
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Liquidambar styraciflua _ 10% Y
Z �Rubus argutus 5% Y
3 �Quercus phellos _ 2% N
4 �Pinus taeda 2% N �
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
� Juncus effirsis
Z Lycopus virgini�us
g �Microstegium vimineum
4 Boehmeria cylindrica
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis Rotundifolia
2. Vitis Cinerea
3.Toxicodendron radicans
4.
5.
6.
19% = Total Cover
10% Y
5% Y
5% Y
_ 20�0 — —N
Sampling Point: WB-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: $ (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species $$ 90�0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC FAC species x 3=
FACU FACU species x 4=
FAC UPL species x 5=
FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
FACW
OBL
FAC
FACW
22% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FACW
2% N FAC
12% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Several FACW or greater plants were observed within the wetland boundary. There was also an obvious change in
vegetation between the wetland boundary and the surrounding uplands.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WB-W�
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 2" 7.5YR 4/2 90% 7.5YR 6/6 10% C M Clay Loam
2- 6" 7.5YR 6/2 70% 7.5YR 6/6 30% C M Clay Loam
6- 20" 10YR 6/2 90% 10YR 6/6 10% C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed at the time of data form completion. The
soil was moist to the touch at the surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/23/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WC-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d, R. Sullivan section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Slight Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Convex Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.835768 �ong: '�8•819269 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Polkton-White Store complex NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
No rain was recorded on the NC CRONOS database for the site within six days of the site visit. The
weather was sunny, dry, and hot (82 degrees Farenheit). The upland data point is approximately 40'
west and 1- 2' higher in elevation than the wetland datapoint (WC-UP).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 16��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 16 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of hydrology was observed at the time of data form completion. Neither soil
saturation nor the water table was observed within 16" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum _ 40% Y FAC
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 15% Y FAC
g Quercus alba 10% N FACU
q�Plantanus occidentalis 10% N FACW
5�Quercus coccinea 10% N NI
g�Pinus taeda 10% N FAC
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrtcm
Z �Viburnum Prunifolium
3 �Quercus velutina
4. Quercus phellos
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
He 5' )
� Microstegium vimineum
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
95°�o = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WC-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: $ (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 800�0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
iv°u Y Fr"�� FAC species x 3=
10% Y FACU FACU species x 4=
5% N NI UPL species x 5=
5% N FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
30% = Total Cover
25% y FAC
11.
12.
�
25% = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (F" " ' �v )
�.Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10% Y FACU
Z,Lonicera japonica 5% Y FAC
3,Vitis Rotundifolia 5% Y FAC
q.Toxicodendron radicans 5% Y FAC
5 Campsis radicans 5% Y FAC
6.
30% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3- Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WC-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 2" 7.5YR 3/3 100% Loam
2- 8" 7.5YR 5/6 100% Sandy Loam
8- 16+" 7.5YR 5/5 100% Sandy Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
No Indicators of hydric soils were observed during site visit.
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/24/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WC-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Topographic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.83577 �ong: '78•818869 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: LneWdCld SdC1C7Y IOdlll NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland includes sewer easement and adjacent forested areas. Area receives hydrology from surface
flow as well as groundwater interception. No rain event recorded within 7 days of site visit (NC
CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 20��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No � 20 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
The soils were moist at the surface but not saturated. Neither the water table nor soil saturation
was observed within 15" of the soil profile. Wetland WC-WET drains into streams SA and SB and
has been historically disturbed by a sewer easement that runs through the center of the wetland on
the eastern side ot stream SA.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
TrP� c+•�+� �•^ ���^+ ����. 30' ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Fra�inus pennsylvanica 20% Y FACW
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC
g Pinus taeda 10% Y FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
40% = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Morella cerifera 10% Y
Z �Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y
3. _
4. .
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
He 5' )
� Microstegium vimineum
Z. Boehmeria cylindrica
g .Juncus sn.
4 Carex Sp.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
2�% = Total Cover
30% Y
10% Y
5% N
5% N
50
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Campsis radicttns 10%
2,Toxicodendron radicans 5%
3.
4.
5.
6.
FAC
FAC
FAC
FACW
FACW
FAC
= Total Cover
Y FAC
Y FAC
15% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Site is historically disturbed by sewer easement.
Sampling Point: W�-W�
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 ��B�
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WC-WET
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 3" 7.5YR 4/4 100% Loam
3- 6" 7.5YR 6/2 50% 7.5YR 5/5 50% C M Clay Loam
6- 10" 7.5YR 7/2 70% 7.5YR 6/6 30% C M Clay Loam
10 - 15 7.5YR 5/3 90% 7.5YR 7/6 10% C M Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
❑ Dark Surtace (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) � Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) � Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
8 Umbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Soils in the vicinity of data point appear disturbed due to historic land use activities as well as more
recent sewer easement.
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 15" of the soil profile. The soil was
moist to the touch at the surfiace.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WD-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Slight Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex None Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.836784 Long: -78•818872 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Chewacla sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
The upland data point was located approximately 40' east and 1' higher in elevation than the
wetland data point WD-WET. No rain was recorded within 96 hours of the site visit (NC CRONOS)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 14��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 14 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology was observed during the site visit.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum 45% Y FAC
2�Pinus taeda 35% Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum
Z �Liquidambar styraciflua
3 �Nyssa sylvatica
4. Quercus pagoda
5 �Quercus phellos
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
He 5' )
�. Osmunda spectabilis
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
1.N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
80°�o = Total Cover
15% Y FAC
10% Y FAC
5% N FAC
5% N FACW
5% N FAC
40% = Total Cover
5% Y OBL
5% = Total Cover
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WD-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: W�-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 3/3 100% Silty Loam
4- 10" 10YR 6/3 70% 10YR 5/6 30% Mott M Loam
10 - 14" 10YR 6/4 50% 10YR 5/8 50% Mott M Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surtace (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
8 Umbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of hydric soils were observed at this data point during the site visit. Neither the
water table nor soil saturation was observed within the upper 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/2014
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WD-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Bottomland floodplain Local relief (concave, convex None to concave Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.836657 �ong: '78•819041 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: LneWdCld SdC1C7Y IOdlll NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland WD is a large bottomland floodplain next to Stream SA. There was no rain within 96
hours of the site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ✓ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓ Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 14��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 14 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland WD's hydrology is likely due to it's geomorphic position as a large bottomland adjactent to
a sizable stream (Stream SA). Wetland WD likely receives water from overland flow from the
surrounding hillslopes, groundwater, and whenever Stream SA overflows its banks.
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within the upper 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum 70% Y FAC
2 Quercus pagoda 30% Y FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
100% = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
� . Acer rubrum 30%
Z �Nyssa sylvatica 15%
3 �Vaccinium fuscatum 5%
4. Hypericum sp. 5%
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
� Carex sp.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vztzs rotun�dzfolzc�
Z,Parthenocissus quinquefolia
3.Zephyranthes atamasca
4.
5.
6.
Y FAC
Y FAC
N FAC
N FAC
55% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FACU
5% y FACW
15% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WD-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: $ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species g], 5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WD-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 3/2 100% Loam
4- 8" 10YR 5/2 60% 10YR 6/8 40% C M Loam
8- 14" 10YR 6/2 50% 10YR 5/6 50% C M Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
✓ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WE-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex COC1CdV2 Slope (o�o�: 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.837846 Long: -78•818371 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: White Store sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Upland data point WE-UP is approximately 15' east and 2' higher in elevation than wetland
datapoint WE-WET. No rain in within 96 hours of site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 12��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No � 12 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of hydrology were observed during the site visit at WE-UP. Neither the water table
nor soil saturation was observed within 12" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Quercus alba _ 60% Y FACU
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 10% N FAC
g Juniperus virginiana 5% N FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
75°�o = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum 10%
Z �Vaccinium fuscatum 10%
3�Viburnum dentatum 5%
4. Carya glabra 5%
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
FAC Y
FAC Y
FAC N
FACU N
30% = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia 5%
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WE-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species ]5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WE-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/3 100% Loam
4- 12+" 10YR 4/4 100% Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of hydric soils were observed during the site visit. Neither the water table nor soil
saturation were observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WE-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Topogrphic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): �- 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.837908 �ong: '78•818438 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Wnite 5tore sandy ioam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland WE-WET is a linear wetland in a topographic crenulation that appears to receive hydrology
from surrounding upland areas through overland flow and groundwater. No rain was recorded within
at least 96 hours of site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
✓ Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology from overland flow (precipitation events) and groundwater. Neither the water table nor
soil saturation was observed within 16" of soil profile. The soil was moist to the touch at 8".
Sediment deposits and algal mats were observed within the wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� )
� Quercus pagoda
z �Nyssa sylvatica
g Acer J^ubrum
q �Liquidambar styraciflua
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Viburnum dentatura
Z �Chionanthus virginicus
3 �Liquidambar styraczflua
4.Vaccinium fuscatum
5 �Nyssa sylvatica
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
� . N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�,Smila� rotundifolia
2.Vitis rotundifolia
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Soecies? Status
30% Y FACW
20% Y FAC
10% N FAC
10% N FAC
��°�o = Total Cover
10% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
Sampling Point: WE-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
4�% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
1�% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation did not display obvious signs of wetland hydrology.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WE-WET
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/2 100% Silty Loam
4- 6" 10YR 5/2 70% 10YR 5/8 30% C M Loam
6- 12" 10YR 5/2 60% 7.5YR 5/6 40% C M Clay Loam
12 - 16 10YR 5/2 50% 10YR 6/8 50% C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Soils were moist to the touch at 8" in the soil profile. Neither the water table nor soil saturation was
observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WF/WG-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Convex Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.838978 �ong: '78•818755 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: White Store sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Upland data point WF/WG-UP is approximately 30' northwest and 1' higher in elevation than the
data point for WF/WG-WET. No rain was recorded within 96 hours of the site visit (NC CRONOS)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 16��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 16 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of hydrology were observed during the site visit. No rain in recent days. Neither the
water table nor soil saturation were observed within 16" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Quercus falcata 30% Y FACU
z. Acer rubrum 20% Y FAC
g Liquidambar styraciflua 15% N FAC
q�Pinus taeda 15% N FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum
Z �Fagus grandifolicc
3 �Liquidambar styraczflua
4. Vaccinium arborea
5 �Ilex decidua
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia
2,Smila� rotundifolia
3.
4.
80°�o = Total Cover
10% Y
10% Y
5% N
5% N
5% N
FAC
FACU
FAC
FACU
FACW
Sampling Point: WF/WG-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 66.67%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Y 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
35% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6• Present? Yes � No
1�% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation displayed no morphological characteristics of sustained hydrology.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WF/WG-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/3 100% Sandy Loam
4- 10" 10YR 5/4 100% Loam
10 - 16" 10YR 5/6 70% 7.5YR 5/6 30% C M Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of hydric soils were observed during the site visit. Neither the water table nor soil
saturation was observed within 16" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WF�WG-W�
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terra� TOpOgI'dphlC CI'2nUIdtlOn .ocal relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRF LRR P 35.838896 �ong: '78•818638 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: Wnit2 5tOC2 SdCIqY IOdlll NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Wetlands WF and WG connect at and empty into Stream SE. Both wetlands have similar soil and vegetative characteristics. Stream
SF empties into Wetland WF. WF is a flattened area downstream of Stream SF that meets WG to empty into Stream SE. WG is a
headwater wetland with same veg/soils as WF that recieves hydrology from ephemeral drainage with no intermittent stream upslope.
No rain was observed within approximately 96 hours of the site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ✓ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 14��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetiand Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 14 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetlands WF/WG-WET are hydrated by surface flow and groundwater. Neither the water table nor
soil saturation was observed within 14" of the soil profile. The soils were moist to the touch at
approximately 10".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� )
� Quercus stellata
z. Acer rubrum
g Ulmus rubra
q �Nyssa sylvatica
5 �Quercus falcata
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Nyssa sylvatica
Z �Ilex decidua
3:Liquidambar styraczflua
4. Acer rubrum
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Gelsemium sempervirens
Z.Vitis rotundifolia
3.Smila� rotundifolia
q.Parthenocissus quinquefolia
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Soecies? Status
30% Y UPL
30% Y FAC
15% N FAC
10% N FAC
10% N FACU
95°�o = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WF/WG-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: $ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species ]5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
10% Y FAC FAC species x 3=
10% Y FACW FACU species x 4=
5% N FAC UPL species x 5=
5% N FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Y 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
3�% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
10% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FACU
25% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WF/WG-WET
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/2 Loam
4- 8" 10YR 5/2 60% 10YR 4/4 40% C M Loam
8- 14+" 10YR 4/2 50% 10YR 5/8 50% C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 14" of the soil profile. However,
soils were moist at around 10".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WH-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex none Slope (%): 1- 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.843018 �ong: '78•818554 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: White Store sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
No rain within approximately 96 hours of site visit. Approximately 15' north from wetland data point
WH-UP and 1' higher in elevation. The areas surrounding WH-WET had recently been logged for
timber.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): �
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at WH-UP during the site visit. Neither soil
saturation nor the water table were observed within 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� )
� Quercus falcata
z �Carya glabra
g Liquidambar styraciflua
q �Carpinus caroliniana
5 �Acer J^ubrum
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum
2 �Carya glabra
3 �Carpinus caroliniana
4. Quercus falcata
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
�. Dichanthelium sp.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Soecies? Status
30% Y FACU
15% Y FACU
10% Y FAC
10% Y FAC
10% Y FAC
75°�o = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WH-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _14 �B�
Percent of Dominant Species 64.3%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
_ 15% Y FAC FAC species x 3=
_ 5% Y FACU FACU species x 4=
_ 5% Y FAC UPL species x 5=
5% Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3- Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
30% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
— — data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5% Y FAC _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
� = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3� ) Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
�.Vitis rotundifolia 5% Y FAC hei ht.
Z,Lonicera japonica 5% Y FAC
3.Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5% Y FACU
4.Smila� rotundifolia 5% Y FAC
5.
6.
20% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WH-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 5/4 100% Loam
4- 8" 10YR 5/3 100% Loam
8- 14+" 10YR 6/4 80% 10YR 5/8 20% C M Sandy Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surtace (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
No indicators hydric soils were observed at upland data point WH-UP during the site visit. Neither
the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/14/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WH-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Topographic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.842949 �ong: '78•818583 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Wnite 5tore sandy ioam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland WH-WET is a headwater wetland situated in a topographic crenulation on very gentle a very
gentle slope. No rain recorded within at least 96 hours of the site visit (NC CRONOS). The areas
surrounding WH-WET were recently logged for timber, while the wetland was left mostly undisturbed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) �/ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 16��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 16 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 16" of the soil profile. The soil was
moist to the touch at approximately 10". Hydrology lilkely from precipitation. The topographic
crenulation continues east out of the study area.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�.Liquidambarstyraciflua 30% Y FAC
2�Quercus phellos 15% Y FAC
g Nyssa sylvatica 15% Y FAC
q. Acer rubrum 15% Y FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
75°�o = Total Cover
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Quercus phellos 10% Y FAC
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC
g�Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC
4. Quercus falcata 5% N FACU
5�Pinus taeda 5% N FAC
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
� Carex sp.
Z Juncus effu.,�us
3 �Juncus scirpoides
4 Dicanthelium sp.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Toxicodendron radicans
2:Vitis rotundifolia
3.
4.
5.
6.
40% = Total Cover
10% Y
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
FAC
FACW
FACW
FAC
25% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
1�% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WH-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 13 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _13 _ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
An obvious change in herbaceous vegetation within the wetland area was observed during site visit. There was an
abundance of Juncaceae and Cyperaceae species within the wetland area that didn't occur in the surrounding upland
a reas.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WH-WET
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/2 75% 7.5YR 4/4 25% C M Loam
4- 10" 10YR 5/2 60% 7.5YR 5/6 40% C M Clay Loam
10 - 16 10YR 6/2 50% 7.5YR 4/4 50% C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 16" of the soil profile. However,
the soil was moist to the touch at approximately 10".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WI-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex None Slope (o�o�: 0- 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.846063 �ong: '78•820479 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: White Store sandy ioam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Upland data point WI-UP is approximately 20' north from and 1-2' higher in elevation than wetland
data point WI-WET. No rain recorded within 72 hours of site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 14��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 14 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed during the site visit. Neither the water table nor
soil saturation was observed within 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum 25% Y FAC
2�Pinus taeda 15% Y FAC
g Liquidambar styraciflua 10% N FAC
4�Ulmusamericana 5"% N �A(;VV
5.
6.
7.
8.
55% = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Ulmus alata 15% Y FACU
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC
g�Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC
4. Pinus taeda 5% N FAC
5� i�accinium sp. 5% N FAC
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
55% = Total Cover
= Total Cover
10% Y
1�% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
FAC
Sampling Point: WI-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species $3.3%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WI-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/3 100% Loam
4- 10" 10YR 5/4 60% 10YR 5/8 40% C M Loam
10 - 14 10YR 6/4 60% 7.5YR 5/6 40% C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surtace (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of hydric soils were observed at WI-UP during the site visit. Neither the water table
nor soil saturation were observed within 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WI-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Topographic crenulation Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (o�o�: �- 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.84596 �ong: '78•820426 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Wnite 5tore sandy ioam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
No rain recorded within 72 hours of site visit (NC CRONOS). Wetland data point WI-WET lies in a
headwater wetland that drains to strean SG. A distinct vegetation change was observed with the
wetland area having numerous fern species present that were absent in the surrounding upland areas.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ✓ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) ✓ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
This area has thick clay soils that likely perch surface waters. Neither the water table nor soil
saturation was observed withn 16" of the soil profile. The soil was moist to the touch at
approximately 10". Hydrology likely from surface flow off of surrounding hillslopes.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum 95% Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Ulmus americana
Z �Juniperus virginiana
3.Pinus taeda
4.Vaccinium fuscatum
5 �Fagus grandifolia
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
He 5' )
�. Woodwardia areolata
Z. Athyrium asplenioides
3. Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
95°�o = Total Cover
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
FACW
FACU
FAC
FAC
FACU
25% = Total Cover
40% Y FACW
30% Y FAC
10% N FACW
80% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WI-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species �� $o�o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Many of the Pinus taeda appear to be dying which is likely because of the shady conditions at the site. Several of the
trees had buttressed trunks. There was an obvious difference in herbaceous vegetation within the wetland compared
to the surrounding upland areas. The wetland had an abundance of ferns whereas the upland areas were devoid of the
farn cnariac
�..� � � ..r...,�.....
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WI-WET
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 5/2 60% 7.5YR 5/6 40% C M Loamy Clay
4- 10" 7.5YR 6/2 60% 7.5YR 5/8 40% C M Loamy Clay
10 - 16" 7.5YR 5/2 80% 7.5YR 6/6 20% C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surtace (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Soil was moist at 10". Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within 16" of the soil
profile. The clay content appears to decrease in the profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: W�-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex None Slope (o�o�: 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P �at: 35.848111 �ong: '78•821555 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Creedmoor silt loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
No recorded rain event within 72 hours of site visit (NC CRONOS). Upland data point WJ-UP is located
approximately 15' west from and 2' higher in elevation than wetland data point WJ-WET. The area surrounding
the upland data point was previously cleared and is dominated by young red maple and loblolly pine trees.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 14��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetiand Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 14 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed during the site visit. Neither the water table nor
soil saturation was observed within 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum 20% Y FAC
2�Pinus taeda 10% Y FAC
g Liquidambar styraciflua 5% N FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
35% = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Pinus taeda 15% Y FAC
2�Quercus falcata 5% Y FACU
3�Quercus velutina 5% Y NI
4�Liquidambar styraczflua 5% Y FAC
5�Cornus florida 5% Y FACU
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
1.N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: W�-�P
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: � (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 57.1%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
35% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Area was previously cleared and is currently dominated by young trees.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W�-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 2" 10YR 5/4 100% Loam
2- 8" 10YR 6/4 100% Loam
8- 14+" 10YR 6/6 100% Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
No indicators of hydric soil were observed during site visit. Neither the water table nor soil
saturaion were observed within 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: W�-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Depression Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): �- 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P �at: 35.848105 �ong: '78•821514 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Creedmoor silt loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
No rain or precipitation in was recorded within 72 hours of site visit (NC CRONOS). Wetland WJ-WET
is a depressional area situated downslope from a manmade pond. WJ-WET empties into stream SH.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
✓ Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
✓ Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) ✓ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Prese�t? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches): 8��
��
WaterTable Present. Yes ✓ No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): SUCfdC2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland WJ-WET appears to receive hydrology through groundwater seepage from uphill pond and
surface flow off of adjacent hillslopes. The microtopography of WJ-WET along with seepage from
uphill pond contribute to the presence of surface water and saturated soils throughout much of the
wetland feature. At data point WJ-WET, the water table was recorded at approximately 8" and the
soil was saturated at the surface. Surface water was observed at 2-3" in depth within the wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum _ 30% Y FAC
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
40% = Total Cover
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Myrica cerifera 15%
Z :Liquidambar styraciflua 15%
g Acer rubrum 10%
4. Pinus taeda 5%
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sampling Point: W�-W�
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
Y FAC FAC species x 3=
Y FAC FACU species x 4=
Y FAC UPL species x 5=
N FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
45% = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
�. Juncus effusus 20% Y FACW
2. Typha latifolia 5% N OBL
3�Microstegium vimineum 5% N FAC
4 Woodwardia areolata 5% N FACW
5. Carex sp. 2% N FAC
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
1.N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
37% = Total Cover
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
The vegetation within the wetland consisted of numerous wetland plants (Typha latifolia, Jundus effusus, etc.) that
were not present in the surrounding uplands.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W�-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 3/1 100% Silt Loam
4- 10" 10YR 5/2 80% 7.5YR 5/6 20% C M Clay Loam
10 - 12" 10YR 5/2 80% 7.5YR 5/6 20% C M Silty Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
✓ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Soils were very saturated at the time of the site visit making it difficult to auger out more than 12"
of soil. The soil was saturated at the surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WK-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex None Slope (o�o�: 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.848674 �ong: '�8•822332 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Creedmoor sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
No rain recorded at least 72 hours prior to site visit. Upland data point WK-UP is approximately 3'
higher than and 15' south from wetland data point WK-WET.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 20��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No � 20 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology present at the time of the site visit.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Carya tormentosa 15% Y NI
2�Fra�inus americana 10% Y FACU
g Nyssa sylvatica 5% N FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Carya tormentosa
Z .Pinus taeda
3 �Carya glabra
4 �Fraxznus americana
5 �Vaccinium sp.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
� Asarum canadense
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
30% = Total Cover
10% Y
10% Y
5% N
5% N
5% N
35% = Total Cover
NI
FAC
FACU
FACU
FAC
5% Y FACU
5% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: W�-�P
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Z (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 33.3%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation �
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation at WK-UP does not display any morphological adaptations to wetland hydrology.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WK-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/3 100% Loam
4- 10" 10YR 5/4 100% Loam
10 - 16" 10YR 6/4 100% Loam
16 - 20" 10YR 6/6 100% Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within the first 20" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 3/15/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WK-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Topographic Crenulation Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (o�o�: 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.848711 �ong: '78•822354 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: �'reeam00C SdCIaY IOdlll NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
No rain recorded within 72 hours prior to the site visit (NC CRONOS). Wetland WK-WET is a linear
wetland feature within a topographic crenulation.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 16��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 16 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland WK-WET appears to receive ephemeral stormwater flow and groundwater seepage from
adjacent hillslopes. Neither soil saturation nor the water table was observed within the upper 16" of
the soil profile. Soils were moist to the touch at 1Z".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Acer rubrum _ 20% Y FAC
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
30% = Total Cover
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Quercus phellos 15%
Z Vaccinium sp. 10%
3 Carya glabra 5%
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5� )
� Microstegium vimineum
Z Juncus coriaceus
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�,Smila� rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Y FAC
Y FAC
N FACU
30% = Total Cover
10% Y FAC
�qi v FqCW
15% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: W�-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: � (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The Juncus only occurred within the wetland and the Microstegium only occurred in or near the wetland. The wetland
areas had more herbaceous vegetation present than the surrounding upland areas.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WK-W�
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 3/4 80% 7.5YR 4/4 20% C M Loam
4- 10" 10YR 4/2 75% 7.5YR 5/6 25% C M Loam Clay
10 - 16" 10YR 5/2 70% 7.5YR 5/6 30% C M Loam Clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed within the upper 16" of the soil profile.
However, the soil was moist to the touch at 10".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/23/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WM-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Convex Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.831017 Long: -78•811741 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Warne fine sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
No rain recorded within the 6 days prior to the site visit (NC CRONOS). The upland data point WM-UP
is approximately 50' southeast from and 1' lower in elevation than the wetland data point WM-WET.
WM-UP is downslope from WM-WET. However, a sewer easement lies between the two data points.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 14��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 14 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
A sewer/stormwater easement is between the data points. It appears that the compacted soils from
the easement construction is causing water to pond on upslope side of easement contributin to the
hydrology for WM-WET. No hydric indicators were observed at WM-UP. Neither the water table nor
soil saturation was observed within 14" ofi the soil profiile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Pinus taeda 25% Y FAC
z. Acer rubrum 25% Y FAC
g Quercus phellos 15% Y FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
65% = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC
3�Ilex opaca 5% N FACU
4. Nyssa sylvatica 5% N FAC
5�Oxydendrum arboreum 5% N UPL
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
1.N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: WM-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
35% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WM-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 5" 10YR 4/4 100% Loam
5- 8" 10YR 6/3 100% Loam
8- 14+" 10YR 6/3 60% 10YR 6/6 40% C M Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of hydric soils were observed during the site visit at WM-UP. Neither the water table
nor soil saturation were observed within the first 14" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/23/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WM-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Terrace Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.831309 Long: -78•812021 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Warne fine sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Situated on gentle slope/terrace northwest from Crabtree Creek and northeast from unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek. A
sewer stormwater easement and a road is situated between the wetland and the creek. Water appears to be ponding on the
northern side of the sewer stormwater easement. No rain was recorded within the 6 days prior to the site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
✓ Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
✓ Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓ Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Prese�t? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches): 2
��
WaterTable Present. Yes ✓ No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): SUCfdC2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Surface water observed within the wetland to a depth of 1-2". The water table was observed at 2"
and soil saturation was present at the soil's surface. Hydrology appears to be from water ponding
behind the compacted soils of the sewer easement.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Pinus taeda _ 35% Y FAC
2�Liquidambar styraciflua 15% Y FAC
g.Quercusphellos 15% Y FAC
q. Acer rubrum 10% N FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
75°�o = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�.Itea virginica 20% Y OBL
2�Yaccinium fuscatum 10°/n Y FAC
3�Nyssa sylvatica 5% N FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
� Carex sp.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�,Smila� rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: WM-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: � (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
35% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
- - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2% Y FAC _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Itea virginica which is an obligate wetland species was only observed within the wetland boundary in and around the
area of wetland WM.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WM-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
o- 4" 10YR 5/2 100% Clay Loam
4- 12" 10YR 7/1 60% 7.5YR 4/5 40% C M Clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
The soil was saturated at the surface and the water table was observed at a depth of 2". It was
difficult to auger deeper than 12" due to the saturated nature of the soils.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/24/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WN�WO-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Convex Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.83151 Long: -78•81109 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Altavista fine sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Upland data point WN/WO-UP is located approximately 163' southeast from WN-WET and 78'
northeast from and 1-2' higher in elevation than WO-WET. Wetlands WN and WO were situated near
to each other and shared similar upland systems.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): �
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at data point WN/WO-UP during the site visit.
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed in the first 20" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Pinus taeda _ 20% Y FAC
2_Liquidambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC
g Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC
q�Quercus falcata 5% N FACU
5�Juniperus virginiana 2% N FACU
6.
7.
8.
47°�o = Total Cover
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Liquidambar styraciflua _ 10%_ Y
Z �Ilex opaca _ 5% _ Y
3 �Morella cerifera _ 5% _ Y
4 �Nyssa sylvatica 5% Y �
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sampling Point: WN/WO-UP
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: $ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species g], 5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC FAC species x 3=
FACU FACU species x 4=
FAC UPL species x 5=
FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
25% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
12.
� = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia 2% Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2% = Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation at WN/WO-UP did not display morphological characteristics consistent with wetland hydrology.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: WN/WO-UP
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 2" 10YR 3/3 100% Loam
2- 8" 10YR 7/4 100% Loam
8- 14" 10YR 7/5 100% Loam
14 - 20 10YR 6/6 80% 10YR 7/3 20% C M Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
BPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
No indicators of hydric soils were observed during the site visit.
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/24/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WN-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d, R. Sullivan section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terrac� Gentle hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.831746 �ong: '78•811558 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Altavista fine sandy loam NWI classification: n�a
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland WN receives stormwater flows from adjacent commercial development. A portion of the
wetland is within a maintained sewer/stormwater easement. No precipitation was recorded within the
7 days prior to the site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
✓ Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches):
� � No n Depth (inches): 12�� Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
Saturation Present. Yes
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
The water table was not observed within the upper 18" of the soil profile. Soil saturation was
observed at 12". The wetland is surrounded by commercial development, a Evans Road, and a
sewer/stormwater easement. Wetland WN likely receives hydrology from stormwater runoff from
the surrounding impervious areas.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Pinus taeda 40% Y FAC
2�Salix nigra 20% Y OBL
g Acer rubrum 15% Y FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
75°�o = Total Cover
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
�. Morella cerifera 10% Y FAC
Z�Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC
3�Fraxznus pennsylvanica 5% Y FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
He 5' )
�. Boehmeria cylindrica
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
� . Campsis radicttns
Z,Smila� rotundifolia
3,Vitis rotundifolia
q.Lonicera japonica
5.
6.
25% = Total Cover
2% Y FACW
2% = Total Cover
2% Y FAC
2% Y FAC
2% Y FAC
2% Y FAC
8% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: WN-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 11 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _l l �B�
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
The wetland is surrounded by commercial development, a road, and a sewer/stormwater easement. The vegetation
community appears to have been historically cleared due to the abundance of young loblolly pines and red maples.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WN-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/2 95% 10YR 5/6 5% C M Loamy Clay
4- 10" 10YR 6/2 90% 10YR 5/6 10% C M Loamy Clay
10 - 18" 10YR 6/1 50% 10YR 7/6 50% C M Clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Soil saturation was observed at 12".
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Sampling Date: 5/24/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WO-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.831313 Long: -78•811203 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Altavista fine sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland WO is situated on a slight hillslope that drains south to Crabtree Creek and is nestled between Evans
road on the west and an upland area on the east. Water is likely ponding at wetland WO because Evans Road
is blocking surface flow. The soils of wetland WO also appeared disturbed likely from the road construction.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
✓ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
✓ Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No II Depth (inches): '" 10��
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): SUCfdC2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No rain was recorded in the 7 days prior to the site visit (NC CRONOS). The soil was saturated to
the soil surface and the water table was observed at 10".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Pinus taeda 25% Y FAC
2 Ulmus alata 10% Y FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Fra�inus pennsylvanica
Z �Liquidambar styraciflua
3 �Morella cerifera
4. Acer rubrum
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
� Lycopus virginicus
Z. Murdannia keisak
g �Ludwigia palustris
4 Juncus effusus
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Toxicodendron radicans
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
35% = Total Cover
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
FACW
FAC
FAC
FAC
2�% = Total Cover
10% Y
10% Y
5% N
5% N
OBL
OBL
OBL
FACW
30% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WO-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: $ (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species $$ 90�0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The wetland had a suite of herbaceous FACW to OBL wetland plants that did not occur in the upland areas nearby.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: W�-WET
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 6/2 65% 10YR 6/6 35% C M Sandy Loam
4- 10" 10YR 6/1 60% 10YR 6/6 40% C M Sandy Loam
10 - 18 7/5B/1 50% 7.5YR 4/4 50% C M Clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
stricnve �ayer pr o�
Type: Cldy
Depth (inches): 1���
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
❑ Dark Surtace (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) � Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) � Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
8 Umbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
The soil profile has disturbed soils/fill from adjacent development (sewer easement; roadway). Soil
was saturated at the surface and the water table was present at 10". A compacted clay layer was
encountered at approximately 10".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WP-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex None Slope (o�o�: 0- 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.831866 �ong: '�8•814928 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP ur,�t Name: Warne fine sandy loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
Upland data point WP-UP is located approximately 40' east from and 2' higher in elevation than
WP-WET. No rain was recorded within 72 hours prior to the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 16��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 16 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at WP-UP during the site visit. Neither soil
saturation nor the water table was observed within the first 16" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� )
� Pinus taeda
z. Acer rubrum
g Liquidambar styraciflua
q �Oxydendrum arboreum
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum
Z �Quercus phellos
3 �Liquidambar styraczflua
4. Quercus velutina
5 �Crataegus marshalii
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia
2,Smila� rotundifolia
3.Toxicodendron radicans
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Soecies? Status
40% Y FAC
25% Y FAC
10% N FAC
10% N UPL
85°�o = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y NI
5% Y FAC
Sampling Point: WP-�P
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 900�0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
25% _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
15% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
No indicators observed during site visit.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WP-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 2" 10YR 4/3 100 Sandy Loam
2- 10" 10YR 5/4 100 Loam
10 - 16 10YR 6/6 100
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Clay Loam
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
No indicators of hydric soils were observed during the site visit. Neither the water table nor soil
saturation were observed within the upper 16" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WP-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) _ section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Bottomland depression Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (o�o�: �- 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P 35.831741 Long: -78•815072 Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: WdCC12 iIC12 SdC1C7Y IOdlll NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No ✓
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland WP-WET is a depressional feature in the floodplain of stream SJ. No rain was recorded
within 72 hours prior to the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Probably experiences flooding/pooling of water during precipitation events and whenever stream SJ
overflows its banks. WP-WET likely ponds water during such events. Neither soil saturaion nor the
water table was observed during the site visit.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� )
� Acer rubrum
z � Ulmus americana
g Quercus phellos
q �Liquidambar styraciflua
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Acer rubrum
2 � Ulmus americana
3 �T�accinium sp.
4. Euonymus americanus
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
He 5' )
�. Claytonia virginica
Z. Zephyranthes atamasca
3. Arisaema triphyllum
4 �Sceptridium dissectum
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Soecies? Status
45% Y FAC
15% Y FACW
10% N FAC
5�% fV FAC
75°�o = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WP-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 12 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _13 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 92 30�0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
_ 10% Y FAC FAC species x 3=
_ 5% Y FACW FACU species x 4=
_ 5% Y FAC UPL species x 5=
5% Y FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
25% = Total Cover
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
FAC
FACW
FACW
FAC
11.
12.
20% = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�,Smila� rotundifolia 5% Y FAC
Z,Parthenocissus quinquefolia _ 5% Y FACU
3.Lonicera japonica 5% Y FAC
4.
5.
6.
15% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WP-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 10YR 4/2 100 Loam
4- 8" 10YR 4/4 75 10YR 5/8 25 C M Clay Loam
8- 14+" 10YR 6/3 70 10YR 5/8 30 C M Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No �
No indicators of hydric soils were observed at data point WP-WET during the site visit.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC Sampling Point: WQ-UP
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex Convex Slope (%): � 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P �at: 35.832288 �ong: '78•815572 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Creedmoor silt loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes No
Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area /
within a Wetland? Yes No �
No rain was recorded within 72 hours prior to the site visit (NC CRONOS). The data point WQ-UP is
located approximately 40' east from and 1' higher than the wetland data point WQ-WET.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches): � 16��
� n Depth (inches): �� Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes n No �
Saturation Present? Yes No > 16 �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at WQ-UP during the site visit. Neither the water
table nor soil saturation were observed within the upper 16" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Quercus alba 30% Y FACU
2�Pinus taeda 30% Y FAC
g Acer rubrum 20% Y FAC
q�Quercus phellos 15% N FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saalinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
� . Fra�inus pennsylvanica
Z �Nyssa sylvatica
3 �Cornus florida
4.Vaccinium fuscatum
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5� )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
95°�o = Total Cover
10% Y
5% Y
5% Y
5% Y
FACW
FAC
FACU
FAC
25% = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3�� )
�.Vitis rotundifolia 5%
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Y FAC
= Total Cover
Sampling Point: WQ-�P
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: $ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species ]5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
No morphological adaptations for wetland conditions were observed during the site visit.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WQ-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 6" 10YR 4/3 100 Loam
6- 10" 10YR 6/4 70 10YR 5/8 30 Mottle M Loam
10 - 16" 10YR 6/4 70 10YR 5/6 30 Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surtace (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
BUmbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
No indicators of hydric soils were observed at data point WQ-UP during the site visit. Neither the
water table nor soil saturation were observed within the first 16" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect�site: NC 54 Bypass (McCrimmon Parkway) cityicounty: Morrisville/Wake Samp�ing �ate: 5/13/14
ApplicanUOwner: TOWn Of MOI'I'ISV1112 State: NC _ Sampling Point: WQ-WET
Investigator(s): B• R22d (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA) section, TownsniP, Range Morrisville
Landform (hillslope, terraa Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex Concave Slope (o�o�: �- 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P _ Lat: 35.832081 Long: -78•815701 Datum: NAD 1983
so�i MaP un�t Name: Creedmoor silt loam NWI classification: n�d
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No� (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No �
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland WQ is a bottomland floodplain adjacent (north) to Stream SJ. No rain was recorded
within 72 hours prior to the site visit (NC CRONOS).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar Indicators minimum of two re uired
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aoolv) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
✓ Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Cra�sh Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surtace (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (69) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes � No I v I Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No II Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes � No n Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No �
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Soil was moist at 16" at dat point WQ-WET. However, no soil saturation or water table was
observed at the data point. Standing water was observed within the wetland at approximately 3"
deep. Hydrology mainly from groundwater and overland flow from stream SJ.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30� ) % Cover Soecies? Status
�. Salix nigra 15% Y OBL
2�Quercus phellos 10% Y FAC
g Fra�inus pennsylvanica 10% Y FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15� )
o� �._.
1..�ucun �i�✓'u
Z �Liquidambar styraciflua
3 �Quercus phellos
4 � Ulmus americana
5 �Rubus argutus
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5� )
� Microstegium vimineum
Z. Murdannia keisak
3.Juncus effusus
4 Typha latifolia
5.Carex sp.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
� �
W . ... _. . ,_. . . .�,v
�.Parthenocissus quinquefolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
35% = Total Cover
10% Y OBL
5% Y FA('
5% Y FAC
5% Y FACW
5% Y FACU
30% = Total Cover
45% Y FAC
35% Y OBL
10% Y FACW
5% N OBL
5% N FAC
1��% = Total Cover
5% Y FACU
5% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: WQ-WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: _12 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species g3.3%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
There is a distinct change in vegetation between the wetland and the upland areas. The wetland has nearly complete
groundcover of herbaceous plants adapted for hydric environments (Juncus, Typha, Murdannia).
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WQ-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
�inchesl Color (moistl % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0- 4" 7.5YR 4/2 70 10YR 4/4 30 C M Clay Loam
4- 10" 7.5YR 5/2 65 7.5YR 4/6 35 Loam Clay
10 - 16 7.5YR 4/1 60 7.5YR 5/8 40
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11;
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
BSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Clay
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
❑ Dark Surtace (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
8 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) � Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
8 Umbric Surtace (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
(MLRA 147, 148)
� Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
� Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Neither the water table nor soil saturation was observed at data point WQ-WET during the site
visit. However, surface water was observed ponded in wetland WQ.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NCDWR BUFFER
DETERMINATION LETTER

�'��
�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCroy
Governor
Btake Mills, Director of Public Works
414 Aviation Parkway
Morrisv'rlle, NG 27560
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
�ctober 2, 2014
Subject: Surface Water Detarmination Letter
NBRRO#14-304
Wake CounTy
Determination Type:
Buffer Call Isolated or EIP Call
� Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233) ❑ Ephemeral/IntermittenUPerennial Determination
❑ Tar-Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259) � Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 26 A267)
Project Name; NC 54 BypasslMcCrimmon Pkwy Extension
Location/Diractions_ The project will extend MeCrimman Parkway over 2 miles frorn
Evans Road to NC 54 with 1.7 miles oFnew road construction and
03 mile ofexisring roadway corridor.
Subject Stream: Crabtree Creek and Stirrup Iron Creek
Determinafion Date: September 10, 2014 Staff: Cheng Zhang
Feature E/I/P* Not Subject to Subject to Start@ Stop a� Soil Survey USGS
Buffer Rules Buffer Rules To 0
SA P X throughout throughout X X
SB 1 X throughout throughout X
SD 1 X Flag SD1 X
SE I X Fla� SE3 X
SJ I X throughout throughout X X
PB Pond X X X
PA Pond X X X
SH I X throu�hout throubhout X X
SI I X Flag SII throughout X
1628 Mail SeNice Center, Ralelgh, Nodh Carollna 27699-1628
Locatiom, 380� Barrett Drive Raleigh, NoRh Carolina 27609
Phone�919-791-42601FAX:91&7&8-7159
Intemet: www.ncwateraualitv.om
An Equal qpponunity 1 Aifrmative AcVion Employer

NC 54 Bypass/McCrunmon Pkwy Extension Johnston County
SepYember 10, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Feature E/I/P* Not Subjeet to Subject ta Start@ Stop@ Soii Survey USGS
Buifer Rules Bnffer Rules To 0
SL I X culvart throughout X X
SM I X culvert thronghout X X
SN I X throughout culvert X
PC pond X X X
I E X X
2 ** X X
3 ** X X
4 ** X X
5 E X X
6 ** X X
7 E X X
g *** X ?C
9 *** X X
10 E X X
WF wetland X X
WG wetland X X
WH wetland R X
WK wetland X X
WL wetland X 7C
WR wetland X X
WS wetland X X X
*E/IIP = Ephemeral/Intermdttent/Perennzad
** Features are piped and do notpresent in the project area
***Features with origins offsite
Explanation: The feature(s} listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Vance County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is
checked "Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features Yhat are
checked "SubjecP' have 6een located on the property and possess characteristies that qualify it to be a stream.
There may be other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still
may be considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the bivision of Water
Resources (DWR}.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or afFecked parties
that dispute a deteemination made by the DWR or DelegaYed Lueal Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within siuty (60) days af date of this letter or Frora the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determinatioa by
the Director ahatl be referred to the Direetor in writing c/o Karen Higgins, DWR WeBSCaPe Unit, 1654 Mail
Service Center, Ra[eigh, NC 27599.
This determinaflon is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/fnture owners should natify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision coucerning any future wrrespandences regardiug the subject property (stated

NC 54 BypasslMcCrimmon Pkury Extension Johnstcan County
September 10, 2014
Page 3 of 3
above). This project may require a Section A04/401 Permit for the proposed acfivity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-Sp7-6300, and the U9 Army Corp of
Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have ques6ons regarding this determination, please feel free to contaet Cheng Zhang at (9 ] 9) 791-4200.
Rzspe `c�fully, /' '
l°
�� ��// /� f � �/ ��//�% "�.
�." l�l
Danny Smit�
Regional 3upervisor
cc: RRO/SWP File Copy
Jason Hartshorn, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 3001 Weston Pkwy, Cary, NC 27513

����,s"�.7;�� ��,%�� w;�r�>� "'���', .�,�,�<.�,�, ��u' ., . - -� .
�. + ,3.�f imlt�h�u„s.,e5'�n `�'��s s;� s'. r�,xv,n «':'6C�..�kk :p .
t PF�OLIIVA SHtEI ��e�JViLjI K 3�
I(��/�' {� � ( � � p C,rr�. � �� "iw
'�` � = )}� r ' �V\ v �J � P � Mi�'
``�� C „^,y. (�•,\�,�C'-`� � <„ / / �^L F,� � ,,�� "11 .'. ��� � � ���✓ `--'�':. .. �
r `
:i . �' "�F'�4i ,� � / �' �
,�r�m�; � `��,`A���� ��_'`.� � � '�� ���� � /� l �� P F ,�\ ,i,�� \) /c ez � c�r's
i, * �r
ir i � ' �°} \ � Me . ` . ��J �� . �
� � { � � � ! � �� �3rC2 � x
1N 4 1 ` � r� '� � {iP� � �,
� ^ �,y �� �'
/ �2 1
. � rrels �` �� � 4r02 �,- �� � ,� �
�� �� �: �.6'r�owe �^ p� I � i I I '� � � � � �� � �-'� , ,,^I
���`���h�� F - � u ` i �, l . � r r' /� �� �Y�� ��� .`� ��-^ r'r��/%� '� � : �
� � ���.G��i � `�� � ) ��-.,�� 1, , '� ..--`.( :,� . A ''���iy,.%`'.idif..•�i/ r-� �-It
...��x �'� � . . ..
N � ��: . � ) l i � ( C� /_;� t i ' f CrEl� "'" .r / C .i J
"�.''_ '� � �, l, '� � a�e�f r /I�" l / N/ % /�� �J � ' � ,
'� � r� 7 ��( � ���� : ��,�„� � ��rr� 'fl �t��`-�G r'� ��, �,��
/ C( >
\ � � � I j j 1
f'6(� �`.. 1 //� � l �. � ,l \ � / I�if'1 {� � /�'C�iV l — % i `I
� ;,I Lf �/F / ' �� �� � i .i }(.Yt
�� � t� "��
.::t /` �_ .^ ," . �.. 'C `� , , � �",., I i"'"' .'cF � C(�'C F �� . � I � "� %
���7 �:'` / l � r e �. � � ^ ( \LI `� \\� . ,.'�._ � i
t � f � � � i'.. m � M R ` � �� � \ � ��. � / �, u � ��.rm c �: -��. / i� i 1. 1,.Ev r�
� , , � � ,
� � � ,.: �,�,� � ,;����,� ,�" � � , � ��/
a �d �',. fs I F��L � � CJh ��� � �� i/—� � �'���� �J����� �� �f,�J \ t @�)��,
� A wn
"'�. � i _�� . � .1� • i � � � � .^� ( ti c. v � Pni'
` � ,' � ���� I " � GVC' ,���' %�'�`�' ���� 'ti�� � ` ,�'' � I 1, � f ����
V�,, � ` � "�^. I i � � � ��. � �� <,c% ( ��'✓ % . < l A �A�">, � . Ctb
, � I� �p
��� �� r — � �'� � �, f l g���",� r � � �.-� ' �` � � � �� �
� -, j��i l k''��� � s. "}:�, � ;� ��r ����� � "y�,i"I� // �� ' ... �t .V� J .�
��� R u �� � � � � �� 1 J �� � � ; ���� � � �� � � � � � � ��� / , S
a � A � ( -- —Y�,J I � �
� � � / �' \ �-�' r v � r � �'�' 1 � ��1��,�� � �l
� f rC2 t't' � �' i �,.�� cm �� � a . . � 1- � '"�- �D "�i r5+ ��s' �� � s /,�.� � � �1� � �� � � a �I
U 4!, .' � 1 rt, 1
/ � � �i �`�" �.r i r �\�� ' �.I n ��r � `7 � �% � �l -`� r_ t , ) \ � �.. �.�
z i � � �
�.�,• "�" l�� -` \�\� : � i�r �" '. 1� 1U�'<� ri3 n>r ��\ � � �
Z "� , t� �, a,
s '� ''�,�—• �'r c� � , ,� i 1 ,'� .. � � � �� r r,s< i ��1 ,
'� "-� C'J r ,. �t J t �� 1� �, tt /i \} '� �P F/ <
!s9$t�r � i � l � �L 1 l ffi �.� "�,k � �., i � f,=1A '-''l' '���.� z+ �: `i 1 / � 1 `�� l
/ „� � `� -� � 1 � � � � � . � �' �
NI'E
� �� � � - 1 � � >� � �",- �. � `�%�� ' � �� � -� � 1 � I
in �_ �,/r �`,4 1 ' `4
� '"�� � ��� �� � ?. %i' �� / � � I � F' t t�i��j ��� � i ,i� ( .� r'�� °� �� � i V _
y i i 1 i � r �,. . � i � Y A i�/
� � � � y �' � � � � .
.-� � � �. � i � , ,
� !� � _'� � -� 4 rx ��� ! _� � �� � � . � "� .��ip��t�y -.`�� 1��� ,, j j� ,r � ii �i �� ���..
�`, � ��� � ' � i � �� A�f >���" .��i� -�^�� ,��f� ' �, � : �y� � /., � i (�� F ct-� � r��I�, .
�/ , � ' ' ,. , , - _ � ,� � A � � 4 ra � 7 �" S� �
� � '' r� '����� � � ' � ° i �y. �'� "'`�.�':,�-�5'��� � �� , "�� t � � �,-� i��� �I
i6� iJ �t � �rE� � .i.', .� Li�i , � � �� �i/ � � ��D1�� i
`7�� ,/I t r� � �� 2 �r� r. . 1 �m � .�i MF�z � A- ���fi�
/ ,.. �� � �
� F � l� ���f �_% . .�f F.i� ���� 1 t�a`w'"� � Ir a�R �`
Z ti'Yi . � � r �\gi/ �°aj ��Wn �� � � � ���
� W P) I,� �� �� ' �. �� A� A.. I i
� �V � �Y I � % - , R�t�,/ � \ � ,�� l I� �`� \ �. �(j
' � i �,
ti
r ���� � �, 1-� 1 w cr � -_ �- � ' i ` � —� =—'�I`_1
� ,, �,i ! �yn-s. ' �� uh "'�-���%� � � � �� � )�
, � � _ �� � _ �
,� <�r�"r-`� , : ( �/,y� °�
b k ' '. `�\.. �� .', <,w � ��y � � � ,�N' �f'I `� � " � l� � �/" � —_ . � �� �� Ch'
� � . �� Wr � � reU_ t (
� tN i .LrC7 � .� / ,i�� 5 t /-'� �� /l �
� i � W�I � !
- �W�.$n �� .th i // �. t�� � M�I3 � f y,.- �/ � /� . � '.4h
�� ,t ��3� 1 � �3�.'�SP � I � } �/^ \ �� � F `�?� �`� o' f � �`i�. �, R1�, � . a ' .� � .
T l ,�ill��� � �� � ��O R �r'—��11✓31� -�i9 � �.-+_a� . .. � � � �
a 1 , . f`tC �` m !v f
�,C�-����t�,`������ � �� w���., ,� � � j-�r �'i
�
�_.� , ���
c,cz,7`j �: �� - � o � -, � arN � %�i �' �i,/.f`�� _,.. �' /- �" �� .
/ . ,' y � . v � \ A 1
� t 1� �Ib �.�� �\.Vvh �� � . � �� ,.A"!n �� . �� �vA �� , �� `��..� ,
�J.� � C[t, , . . �'�
�,-- � � � � ) � f� � G� i�
,
' � }� \ � hd"C
-' � > .,� � , � � � � - ) � 1„r
� � � \ i \ � �p i� r %� �
�'� W;i t �� Wa� �V '� Cm ( �,�' R, .� �� � �' 1 N(w�� � .
r / p )
I � �, � �,�,�� �� ;d � � ' � � ( � f � � � � o
wv Nu ri ��r I` . Pi.F h �- e
� � � � �< w'1 ��! 1 ' , cte � �
�� -� , / i. - ;: , , - �� ;�� ` j� � ��cA��
�� WsC / Gr� � Wn ' ..:� _—.� .� __� _ ���ti�-t2 � ��. � ' 1�i8 ��� 1 , �,�� '
� > Mc
LrC2' � �x�i ��"_— � —I �_— ti
ll�_��_�_ — -- � �.

N � n�� � �� � �w�s; �� o-cz i/ � i u��/ c, �-
� /,
�� � i h �i �
� ���� i � ��, �� � e � —'' g�--��
µ��`. �' /�W E � � Wv6L W iUa � ��
r��/ l� l.� c� , � �b� b✓ W C2 -(\�, ��.
� .\/ � C� � , t� � _
� \ lrE � �i �v�8� �' g`;A ,
� � � '. � �� �� � � � � � -
,�;`- F .l /. �v e � ci c2� / A�� LL"r- �`� �r � �-_
� } 1
>, � ���
�� , � � � , Ns��, . �, �
r �' r ;� � r % 1,� , , -.
rii ti�.- � �'Z " ;i .`�
�if� �I� ����� �
- , � k - . �
� u� � �
� - �"'� "`=4 ' �� r° �s� � � �'��
� - a , (-� � � � � � � � � , J � .
iW � �
� � x` F L
1 i �c��
� � " � 1I (
f � � � � ��� � i w�
I� -�"� �� � �� � � � � ��� � �I� � � `�' ��� � � �C�
,
�� �`'-- -� � 4ya. _ � �� 1 1 U �� '�J � � �ia
Vwn % == . � 1 b�.i t CI� j� �1
a 1
�� ����� �A���� �� ,�,�� �� „-� � , I rr�� �,�
-' � t � y:.z�'/ ' r l��, rri���` _ ,
�� l � � I 1 y v4 "�` i��;-
��. �. �`�` '� '� l � f(:�� , �' "% I ' �k i �° rv��
II f ��i-- /� � � �.'� �� ' i 1 i�J.' hl1R"1 ' � MY82. �.. � � i
?/ �1 — v." z `. /ti�`.��N�/, �- GC� �3 � ! i
� /�,
} � � � �
f� i�1�� �`1 ��'r �_ ��� �✓� r� � i����.t:
WAKE rJ�JUN � r, � �.,,' , . .,..�,�
� - i,
� � - � �
i i�
-�� P .,� ����� � �� �y
� �• t �. � � r � i
. ir i � � 4 t ���
� 11 1 :
_ � !�
F� �� �j, �CrB2
't t ,���,1
_ ��
�' ,
l ,
�' � ., ���\ , �"
r ,
, '�'
, � � ��, i i
r ' ii L��Jf �.
\
fl. �� . ..�i r� � J�.{ i rC
i i J�t
� „ ���.
� �
�� �` � ' '' ' ` s ri
� y� �
,�
� y r � � �
� - <� �`>/ i�
� � � ,, �
°� � ,�
n�.,
'\p t � ,'- � -'�1�: '. i c,�c'� �
b / �
I� � � � ( 4''--� �, �u, �� 1 �V � ��? i �� i i �� � { f�v � i /' t +'
'S � �� F � �`• Is �` � � `.� � i` A r /� �.
� ,, � ` ( � � �`—�'����I I Mo. � t ' t r � ��': �
c
� "' N � � . �l R a�i �l t rI� ' �;/ W [3 > �
I I 2�"�:. ,. i g ��`'�� �� ��`� � f r v'�/.l� ,y� l,i� � I�, \�C 4�lF��rr.Flt 'J l 'i l '�
� '� .� � 4 `� P�` -�,n°"" �� � _�� �� if � t �� �•
� � ��� � �r ,�� �G �. � -�, . :� d 't kL = � � . � � 4 / i � f
p �ry d r � � � r,
� �n �.vlSd � . A � F..� �/ �` �5 � ! i/
� � �
� i � � ..� � 1"t � p � � 9 �'.v i : n. 7 �
- .-� �V# . .,� � . ., ���
�,v �,, 1.�,,•�� �� � � r " ¢,. �F�,..� �i � 4.-` l� ! �,'t-� q t ,r j;
� I r/ � t A� �s [)j�£e a� � a`�t� ;,� ����� t 4 ti.ra .
� Il � 1 � �� �' �N . ���� 1 : / , � � �
U n� /
i �1 � �"� � t � I.
� .� � �� � n C l� i a` �' �, lY"a �}�sCc I tV' �- r "� � C i i
_ I � t \ ij" Y �� °. �, itu�.(�V�.-7� r� �` ., �-.. � � �: l i �
��- I r �/.�� w � �� � � �_ \ r � . � t s,, + � s .;�
� � �� 'N�� t tE �1va I � i� /� �t ti�l , ! ��' � " �„ f �-' � �f lr.k�.
� � � � � i /� � � �_._.1 >� A � � f + � i '_ � „ '"� �., f d
�/�4. � Y � 1 �h .. r l e�'r
� .. � i i � f � { � � �
�� �VV 4 � �. �i�/ II � i., � \t ! i 1 . � � � � � , i �` ��¢�
la � "�� `� / � �`� � � ���Cr � Fr ,� V�y i/ ` _I
� " „ //` il � cn ��� � � wse: � 14�,��'� � � ' /
� I . � � �
'C' �' n�CrB2'. � �;� � �V ��� ` .� ,
� � � , –"�1�", �i z � i H��� � � � r � � 4
w>s� / �, �� �� c 5�, i --��
� � � '\. . � ' � Crt � � ��F �r82 � i . � A � i . � � �,'Uf 3 �:
�-� L rR� � � r _. t `I I -
� � �„� c
, yV go �
..,, d� � . ,� � �' � � � .-- �� . i � ( P3 ' � � � ; t'— � + I ,, f � —� � : �
�,i � i 1, �v' ^�, � �
�5 / 1 i �,� y [�tl"�'.�-�.1 � � tv\' �lo t If 1 . ��
-v� v v � P �` �`�.-1 '� �� 1 1 % � � lt,v� � �`�
v �
� � . � �N`}� �te��,�� � _7 tiji; ��. �°�l� ��.�
�I�' � ��� � w e � � -- �� ,j � �, � � j t ''� t� � � :�� r t �y'. t � � e�3 �'
� �:�.�� � � � �"�� �� �� . i / �� W:.�� .�� � r�`: i� A � �' � �._
� i �� � -- ltv Y � � � % � . � i � ! ., 1 � ,,�-`�� �
. A �. � ^�. �,s :� � wi i � '
- Lr 2 � -=r � � � /
,r� Gr,- � lNa9�' �' W n �{ Fr Irosft �t � ��1 � i r�� l �'`' .7
�c WsH2�� � ' �� fi82 � �. ��.� �/ . /i��`'% \„� A .. � � � "�II
�4! F � Y r— 1..'Y . l �, �% $e�3
�� I � . ��wr � A _�,� ;a.l�� � r� ',�ii r,> ,'� �. `` `t� �� "�...
we � . � v�, ,, , �. � � ; \\\
i
n � . . � 1�c9� / �W�6d ������ <'�� �� N�/,� :I � i. l �. 1 �li✓C2� W�C2 Ws4
� J > I
� WsC? rE2 � � t . r ✓� i a� ` %l -s, �- � i � '. I"� � � �,. � , y
�.. I ����`asb� ��� Cr �-��c2 � ��Ai,�. ����'a�s�2 �JCrNa� .�f ����,�"iy\� �I�s.J ��� \ W .
l� _ � -�} � u,� �` �° ° `–"�:��` :.a_ ��..�r�"° 1_ r�cz�=�."��� .�i; ",��� ��.��cz ��� W n�, .
J��ins ,heut d6i -
. . u � ...,, ... ,.� e x.. a�+� � , �t a..H :.a � F .*Y's"��' , �F'4S�&'�f�i'Pl�a

irva — s+t�i ��,u�vi�r_r;� ��

as9z -� � � ��1� ,� � �cz / � z � 2 �r� N/AKE COUM Y � , .,Hri,
I� �, ` —
� � � �� / �: r �+ � � {� '�'� r�� `•,'� - ` � �
� L. � � .1�� ,, \
��' t � ���� � � `) �� �w � s P � r ��� � Mk
,�°,.- � F � �` �� u e � � ' y -1` rvo�'t . c;-� � ._ ,1 \ \ � � .
V � � �1��+ _
s� � /, � T \ r8 �� ���WvGa� Mye�� � , � � � �� ��
� , V t ."�; \ 4�� 1. ,i''' ��``�' t� 1 nI ��� �A �` _ ; � /�
� !n � ���1 � 1j � "� , (�� � {
/,' J � �
�- f' SC t � Wz62 l�� f � ` r � �� '� ��
l �t, � �/ A� ` t
� �" 0 � p !
is ���j�� �� I Y a ��� �, rrr..�'S
� f p � I �� I� }
�� ��.��V i ti�`^�� �._.=�-�.r �'; 1� (
� � n �, � i ., ,� i �- ; � `r c - � �.. , , - ,' , ,'
� r �
� s�_� ty � � A ��' � °� "- � F r J� ' � G � r I I ��� n � � :� � /t I i, r�" �` � � �� . �
� �
s , ;� r �f �� /`I� � � _;�,, � , �r � ��� �
Wv � /' ` A`' !� �'�",<a � i �� °" t �� ���� � ,��� �� � I �I �G�
, � , � � � �� ,��ii�-� ?� „
, � : i , � �� � r
i I i` � t Y,` l, � �� r �I ����� ��e � „�
)� .r ti -YI � f i �frll iF ��� ii A 'S t i 'f
� � � � v � ,l � f f Nx � i � > � '�r // r '� E r ` , . s � i ; 1
� i j�.� '� `��� � {, � ����x� � � � �` � �'.
� � i N � ,y � i ,l� Y V ' � 4 �' i
� f '.,f "� �` .li f�"�" �a;te� Ch q�(� � MreL �. � I � :.�I � r�� i �„�
� �� � � ✓ , 1 I l t^r �� � � � � s e � l � � � ra
x.� '� � —f� � / � � j
� 4 � � � � � / —�`'�..;� �� � �� ��Yf q� • i Y� � f
( 8 1 I C �%
��� 1 .__ r'1�'1N.L`' -�N�p��o����� �� I _ i :`/ C�ti � ��,
i bt � i t Ys V /� �
'" . ' � � ` ���' �"✓ ��,� �� � � I / �
II � 4 _ >' � d 'c3��"� M1 � y�+�" � f 6_�\ � I �( �
� !'�. v r;�. =��r��(�h `�j�5irti� t r ' ��` ,1 r_rr.2!�
1� �
II i r,�, � �� ✓� :�4h+ ,�a\��. I— I , � w_ � �, ii � ..:"'
h i �� � f � . '�- V� ll. C ��i8% � ��.. ,�r.� ti � i i i /xi����/
:� � li �� W � �.,�, � �\.�� Ma, f`� �4 _ 1 � ��/ � Gr8'+� .i
li II c v t *... �::F tl �ihlyf��c.� te�. �.. � '4� �I'� i - �' ` ' � i 'j!� i :� l Ws92 �:
-,rt �'l- - ,(� � ti ` " /d� �
t �.,� `. �° F � �' Vl Z. �� W f . y � ii �C � 1 � �. . t � '� I� / � �
�I � � � �' i�� � �v �� 1 � i .� � � i (� i � � � t
't � � � �/ y wR^
� � � ��p� �� v � .
�n � t � .,�V "'�. '�� ' � �
� � 1 �� � �� i �, ' al �. ' � r
w , n, r
ns V1 � � 4:-?' �� � . � � � `� y � ��.
�r �
x t, + � 1-
i � I I i �' ' / �.�il��'�{ i �\•~\ w;3T � 1 c�\�. '.'f�l �v 3, �'�� � , ri S , r; � �
(: t � �
m (p � �( � . 6 � �j�/ I� �^,A � �.� �b �( � �+ � �'. � �
�� I ,.�ttCAW� 1 ^� v
`,� t1 . t � ' -'\ �
4
r/,. ��� � � � ��� � v� \� A� i `� i f 7 t ` 9
�� �� �I � s ,�r W -<1 �f,u�l.i �� � `j. '�,�� ` � . � x . � i �
��� ���� L: '�• . � •� i-• � �\ � A t' ��� � � "l �'��'�� .
�� z. � aw � i �, � �� p�� / �� A , � � ; s � r�
m C.P �.� ��, t � �4'���'s,�'� I _ �� II� � � s .� �� ° ��
�� ;+ � / ./l i �y 1 i �� :Y'i,�a`4'- �I ..- ' a ia �.;� f , _� f � i ti \ � �G�
WCE f�` C �,ie<� .; y� � � J
��= i t ,� � �i ' f f��l ■b�� "e ��:'r ,�jl �� r � � \
_ �f �r4>� �i S � �� �� Cr� }� 'Y✓". .F � WsbJ � p'j9f f,IPp� �, i ` � L \ i
i r � . � �� � , �,_ f I `� I �
//, �
�� y�
� �� u ' � rrf32. �f�A .�. (�� � i,� � .. , ' � qb �
� � /`�� � . �. '�� �, rt.i+ � i^ ir6�� � ��r i� �� ��b�
WsB2. / �� �`-�l/ �� ,.._. 1 ,"l *�ti �
7
_ ���"t' ✓/ t � t � ��� ��� � `� c��r ��" 1�,� � f� �1�. "� w,r.a
�� ;.�7a r r �J.,C7� „ A r � � � ��.H i �� ' 4 � , r �� / � � ��; �
i�Cr8 �,v4 � �, �� �1� \ t ^'� ��' t� ,t` ..:af Y ^ �rt ",l� �x �✓,� ` 1 '_ �' t , ` ijj ���
\\ �'~��� i'� ' -}'�`l,.l_�---,.. ��r fr. ;, c � � t " t � �
� __ � '�\\ � �_ `-�� _�.4 �� '. C+ � .J `\� \ / n
{` .�� �„t�"� �� ,�'.� � ? t � � �.�.
„ � :
( i� : . I i +
I P\ ` �l .i � \L' \� �� ,�`�I �'f: 1, �� I ! •/'Ir.� ` `` �+F; 'i
( \ V � �'rt . . '. t �rl � � \ � ..t.c a �: `� � ` � , .
� _
� r.
- ��. 1 � _ -� / ' � Wse (j �'' � ' r <,{
� i - � , w u �U � , �dw ` � � ��l
� � --` � � '� , r � -
� . ,� me � � i ��1R7 �, ;�naz[�� �� j�� u�,g�, `�� ' .��� ti� �y � � � �
< n 1
I� �� vasez; �� � ��Cra2 /% — ��j ��� ��4Sw "'� t � �t ��
`
� ��.
r�ez � . � " � �
�' �� . .WY !� � � J�"�N,rl�S`� � ,�l �/r t ,,. `''�i' � \ \� ~-.;
,- w� ., �t �t ..
�wY 4.✓' ,l , €`? C'' 1 , l � , - i �
,�, ` � �°;, /ws�s� ws�,� l, �� � 4, i��/��� ,._ A w>% � t , = �i � �,;�� � ; �� uvss
, � ��-�. � � � _� V 5��1. �- �� � l� ""� f � . � . ��j W.77� .
IJ�r�7 _,�� � .� �\ � � � f ` � . � "� (///�� l
I�.�ry 07" � �1 s`�' �� �� ��H? / � �A � 1"t's li: �� �\��._r�
Y ,{�
�s �Y rcz 1.\:� c2 ���'��` �v�� >�`� � `u/fi�� �� �U ��`�L I�l. , ' �'
l r``�, frb7 �� i�,.� � �-� Wsr
\ � ; �u 13=�` �'�u `I �� or���� a�
(Jam. ,hupt J61 . . - __
s `mu- `"h "� �s„�'��.:.s� . d '� ," ._ ';��"' �._.

r�.k�U�4U� ` k �, , . .J - �
N ✓ t � ,� �e�, '-'�� . k�! / �,.. �i# i , � � � � x
f § //)5� � j 4 /
A �! �f � t� ����1r8� �� i (_(_. h � . q Z�� <i �s�'A � I ..� � �� �� . .
J., 'P h e{. \ � %� 9 Y_t� . v � .. � �� � r � .
� 1 ! � � � � 1 j �„ . � � � � � � +""` � "`� �,.
� _ �- i �=--� �
1 ���, � - , �', � � t;. , :� � ��� .-``/
� '` � �;`� �,1> � I� � � f �-�:.-s"`���`��!`- ` �` � � � �. f ,.,, `�,, � � � � � .
� '���y�y . � . t � � "� Z
+�'°a ��g�� I � �,� �`'r�, � ---8�3�Yf s' °-..- s� _ � T� � '7 .
�
�� {��.+ `"�� .r—`-� _$ �, . ... .. _ � �� I
� � " : i . � lr_.`.� •� / •_
, . ,� b q� 1 f„� �� � z �. `3 /
�
.�� I � y _ � �„ ' �37� ��� ��� � r��, � - { " f �� '
.. � ��F . `��''�4,� � m t:�w ti . � Y ^'�: } � !� ��y 7 �'1 �. � �
. , .
, . : ... : ,. .
�
� � ��" y�
� . � � � . 1 , 9!$ $2
} s +}' ,
� � ♦ `� � � � '�,.. a'Ji Y h •� �"`---"
, e
��"v� � ����1 ii'�:f'a ���� � �^� �� 1%`�'��,�/yV����-i, . �� `,t , � � r��� � � ....
..' � .,.,. ,'A .... . � -0� . ' � '
�, ` �, c+
t
J I �x`f � � S . � t � �1 � 4� �� � ^ /j�� � � !fl.� �� � � = � ��
� � �. ...t� �� rt �� .Y a' � .^�.
"'a �y�Prr' 4'ti„` ky I �l��y}��.��� � 6 " �� .���� nl � �'�. i v
\� � ; .. , � . � .
� �� . � � . �` ' '�v.� . - �\ � ti _ .. ���
' 1 �`'` p`, �., ,. r, � . � � 1 l• ,,,.', x� �'s �'`.-C�. � � � - � � � '_ .
��� . �. � � . }.. ` :'���� �,�` ..�� � .§�'==- �._� `� � � r +���� 't�. :p � .
: .�� .� . � � .. � ,: z � z ��� ti� . ::.
e. �, � �.
. �. � t �� _ _. � �' - �
� y i} �{�
� - _�— ` � �� a , ,� � :%` �'� _
a ,.. . G_'� ^�• '��`.� 0. �. z'�„L� J 'w ',...� � �.� 'r. A`�. .�i {
_ ¢
.. �c� � . � 4 � � tl . �\ i � �.„'�
�
1 A` � ' . ''e� i . . �^ .
\ � f t �l� 0 �.. . i y � " � • � $
- ! i � Cj ; x � 1 < <� 'y � �: i .r�, ..- .� �� �t
'R ;l . t �� �. �yp .,r'"
,
.. ,
= (-�
. . . i ? ��< < ' � � �},� '� � ��` 4 � �
�
�
,
U� � ti�' ��j � � .
� ��� � � f ;� ;: %% ...5 k.'j� `,� �'iiM �„� { I a � � t ,;� ,x s� � .�c�'"' ti w. � k,� � `.
�' - ���r��l� �. -_ � �, . � �, "� �, � u�� (
� � �: ;
��3�:i � ` �. ��'k�i��.� t� 1 rti� V • 0� � � t
0
�.
a
Leoend t ' Ga Yranru'4`Pcd ife75 �Y` � �I . 7 � ..-'F �� �_ w�-{�� .� 5 ti � t.
. _
� ti',. . �"_l , is"`'� �' � .,.,�.. 7 ,fl • s ��"� i�, ^ y � ��
ProjecC Study Area '';, -� a y '1 � �, � ° '+ ti� �
� ��. . �, s . �j `:} ^� � ` � q �t � '�t ,
� FFgure 2: USGS Topogr�phic Map (Cary Ruad, 1967)
0 1,000 2,000 McC,rimmon Parkway Roadway Project
Kimley>»Hc�rn �Feet Town o( Morrisville, Wake County, N(,
June2014