20081608 Ver 1_CAMA Application_20081021

TO: Ms. Kim Garvey
US Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1000
October 17, 2008
0 8- 1 6 0 8

RE: NWP 39 Application: Holden Beach Middle School & Park Traffic Improvements
Brunswick County, NC
Ms. Garvey:
Enclosed is a NWP 39 application for your review. This application is submitted on
behalf of Mr. Steve Stone, Assistant County Manager of Brunswick Count for a school project
located in Holden Beach, NC. The applicant is proposing the Holden Beach Middle School and
Park project which will include associated utility and roadway improvements. NCDOT has
required an off-site traffic improvement impacting 36.3 linear feet of stream. Impacts to the
stream will be required to meet the conditions of the NCDOT.
The Middle School site has 23.63 acres of 404 wetlands on site which have previously
been approved by the USACE under Action ID: 2007-471-010. Corey Novak of LMG delineated
the areas to be affected by the road improvements and four stream crossings were identified. No
adjacent wetlands were found. The project site has not been evaluated by the USACE. The Pre-
Construction Notification form, associated maps, and site plan are enclosed for your review. All
stream forms and worksheets associated with the wetlands JD package are also enclosed. A
courtesy copy of the enclosed permit application will be sent to DWQ. Please contact me if you
have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.
Environmental Consultants
Y5
Ashley Futral
Wetland Scienti?
Encl. 92@ROWRY
C: Mr. Ian McMillan, DWQ 0 C T 21 2008
Mr. Chad Coburn, DWQ W TIAtAZASATE A
Mr. Steve Stone, Brunswick County WANCM
Mr. Brian Riley, Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co.
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
f14 ; 2 1 1'008
aunu>>
DEW - Office Use Only: WSTLMC)SANDSTOR Form Version March 05
0 8- 1 6 0 8
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing -JOURTESY
'?fl
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Brunswick County: C/O Steve Stone, Assistant County Manager
Mailing Address: PO Box 249
Bolivia NC 28422
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Ashley Futral
Company Affiliation: Land Management Group, Inc.
Mailing Address: PO Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: afutralklmgroup.net
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
Updatcd 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 12
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Holden Beach Middle School & Park Traffic Improvements
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 20000009; rights-of-way along Cedar Grove
Road and Stanley Road
4. Location
County: Brunswick County Nearest Town: Holden Beach
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Wilmington take
US 17 south to the Holden Beach area. Take a left onto Stone Chimney Road and a right
onto Cedar Grove Road. Project area is at the east corners of Cedar Grove Road and Stanley
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 33.9598 ON 78.2709 °W
6. Property size (acres): _ School Site: 160.42 ac; Utility Project area: -2.5 miles
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Lockwood Folly River
8. River Basin: Lumber 03040207
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The school site is currently undeveloped. Land use on site
is mostly agricultural or wooded. Surrounding areas are undeveloped and wooded The
intersection of Cedar Grove Road and Stanley Road is the only development with the
exception of a residential dwelling, to the south. The utility project area runs parallel to
existing roads.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
project involves the construction of Phase One of the Holden Beach Middle School and Park
Updated I 1/ 1 /2005
Page 6 of 12
and associated utility and roadway improvements related to the school. The total project
includes site development of a park facility and -2.5 miles of off-site sewer force main
installation, 1,900 linear feet of off-site water main installation and off-site traffic
improvements required by NCDOT. Site development of Holden Beach Middle School is
under separate contract. In addition, a portion of Cedar Grove Road and Stanley Road will
be widened. This work will result in permanent impacts to 36.3 LF of stream related to a
roadway widening. The applicant will directionally bore under all other jurisdictional areas.
Silt fences will be used to reduce erosion into adjacent wetlands and tributaries.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed work is to impact a
section of RPW in order to improve the quality of the existing road and install utilities.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. The school site was previously delineated by LMG and approved by the
USACE please reference Action ID: 2007-471-010). Corey Novak of LMG, Inc. delineated the
areas to be affected by the road improvements and four stream crossings were identified. No
adjacent wetlands were found. The project site has not been evaluated by the USACE. All
concurrent stream forms and worksheets are included in this package. We are requesting a
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination alonsi with the hermit.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permits are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Proposed impacts are limited to
a 19.6 linear feet area to the north of Cedar Grove Road and a 16.7 linear feet area to the
south of Cedar Grove Road. The two impacts are part of the same portion of road
improvement.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) N/A
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 23.63 (school site
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Al UT to Lockwood
Folly River Grade/Fill Intermittent 4' 19.6 .002
A2 UT to Lockwood
Folly River Grade/Fill Intermittent 4' 16.7 .002

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 36.3 .004
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 12
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): .004
Wetland Impact (acres): N/A
Open Water Impact (acres): N/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) .004
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 36.3
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation N/A
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any snaps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The applicant has minimized
impacts as much as possible. Four stream crossings are required. Three of the crossings are for
utilities and will be directionally drilled to avoid impacts. Impacts will be limited to just one
area totaling 36.3 linear feet of intermittent stream. This is needed for a road wideniniz, as
required by NC DOT (see enclosed documentation). This area is already degraded because
Cedar Grove Road has bisected it. In addition no wetland or stream impacts are needed within Phase
One of the school site.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 12
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stiingide.litml.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is proposed because impacts are minor and the system is already degraded
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information: '
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 10 of 12
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers. N/A
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(sauare feet) Mitieation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone l extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. N/A
Updated 11/1/2005
Page I I of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The State Stormwater Permit number associated
with this project is #SW8 071006 5.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This sewer line will tie into Brunswick County system.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: This
project will not provide access to adjacent tracts.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
?7/vS
Applicant/Agent's or ature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 12 of 12
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I/we, the undersigned, hereby authorize Land Management Group, Inc. to act as our agent in the
reparation and representation of information related to the permit application for the
e-oj 'P_,ewct4 Ik (ctd l R?
0o k -s ;1-C site. All questions in regards to this project should be directed
to Land Managdi en Group, Inc.
Sincerely,
Owner/Applicant
C-Aw
Print Name
1/1 Date
Page 1 of 1
Kim Williams
From: Al Bishop [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 3:55 PM
To: Riley, Brian
Cc: Craig Eckert; [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: Holden Beach Middle School/Park
See below the phasing. al
>>> Dan Cumbo <[e-mail]> 1/24/2008 10:53 AM >>>
Phase 1 TIA review
Per our meeting yesterday, Phase 1 will consist of the school and a portion of the park(not the portion which will
generate the special tournament type traffic)
Offsite Improvements will consist of the following:
Intersection #11 - Site Access/Stanley Road
SB - left turn lane with 200' storage
NB - right turn lane with 250' storage
WB - exclusive left and right egress lanes with 200' storage
Intersection #5 - Stanley Road/Cedar Grove Road
All approaches - left turn lanes with 100' storage
Intersection #6 - Cedar Grove Road/Stone Chimney Road
SB - right turn lane with 100' storage
EB - exclusive left and right egress lanes with 150' storage
Intersection #7 - Stanley Road/Stone Chimney/Old FerryConnection
NB - left turn lane with 100' storage
SB - left turn lane with 50' storage
Also, as discussed with MSTA unit, specific on-site review recommendations will be provided in the near future
from the MSTA unit.
10/8/2008
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Holden Beach Middle School Utility ROW Date: September 22, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Brian Riley - Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. County: Brunswick
Investigator: Corey Novak - Land Management Group, Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Upland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar styraciflua T/S FAC+ 9.
2. Pinus taeda Tree FAC 10.
3. Gordonia lasianthus Tree FACW 11.
4. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 12.
5. Pteridium aquilinum Herb FACU 13.
6. Osmunda cinnamomea Herb FACW+ 14.
7. Gelsemium sempervirens Vine FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 86%
Remarks:
Data form taken near the intersection of Cedar Grove Rd. and Stanley Rd.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: '18 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Leon fine sand Drainage Class: poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Haplaquods Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No_
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0->18 10YR 3/1 LFS
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
sandy soil <70% coated with organics
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Statc:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Brunswick City: Holden Beach
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 33.9575° N, Long. 78.2876° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 3760759.09 750644.42 zone 17
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Shallotte Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Shallotte Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lumber 03040207
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
® Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Detenmination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section ?I.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TN W
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: -3278acres
Drainage area: -119 acres
Average annual rainfall: 41 inches
Average annual snowfall:.6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known: first.
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional intorination regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: -3 feet
Average depth: -l feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ® Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: In tact tributary.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 30 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent but not seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: overland sheetflow.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: No. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to detenn
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
me lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water quality is in tact. Water color i s relatively clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: N/A.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHW M has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Rooted plants and fibrous roots in channel.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test pcrfonned:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Although the RPW shows up as a blue line on the USGS topographic map, the RPW was classified as intenmittent
on the Stream Identification Form (UT to Shallotte Creek, west). The other RPW site did not even classify as intermittent
according to the Stream Identification Form (UT to Shallotte Creek, east).
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
"See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Meniorandunr Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:7.5 minute USGS topographic map, Holden Beach Quadrangle.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: NRCS Brunswick County soil survey.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps:Floodplain Map.
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2004 NAPP aerial photography.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
F'
rw-
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Fonn Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Brunswick County City: Holden Beach
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 33.9598° N, Long. 78.2709° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 3761055.19 752181.26 zone 17
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Lockwood Folly River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lockwood Folly River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lumber 03040207
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Z Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD forn.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past; or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the US." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IILA.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: -5,578acres
Drainage area: -473 acres
Average annual rainfall: 41 inches
Average annual snowfall:.6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are I (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order, if known: first.
" Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the grid
West.
'Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: -3 feet
Average depth: -1 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 30 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent but not seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: overland sheetflow.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: No. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water quality is in tact. Water color is relatively clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: N/A.
('A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Rooted plants and fibrous roots in channel.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Although the RPW shows up as a blue line on the USGS topographic map, the RPW does not classify as
intermittent on the Stream Identification Form (UT to Lockwood Folly River, east).
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not aTNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
'See Foomote # 3.
° To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III. D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act.Iurisdiction Following Rapauos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC snaps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:7.5 minute USGS topographic map, Holden Beach Quadrangle.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS Brunswick County soil survey.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps:Floodplain Map.
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2004 NAPP aerial photography.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
S. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 9/22/08 Project: Holden Bch Middle School Latitude: 33.958084
Evaluator: Corey Novak Site: UT to Shallotte Creek (west) Longitude: 78.289279
Total Points: 26.5 Other Holden Beach quad
Stream is at least intermittent County: Brunswick
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 6.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits U_ 1 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
man-made aitcnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 9 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 O
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.5
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = 11 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.7 OBL = 1.5 AV = 2.0; Other = 0
11C111J cv dHU L 1 iocus on the presence or upland piants, item za focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 9/22/08 Project: Holden Bch Middle School Latitude: 33.957205 I
Evaluator: Corey Novak Site: UT to Shallotte Creek (east) Longitude: 78.286333
Total Points: 12.25 Other Holden Beach quad
Stream is at least intermittent County: Brunswick
if>_ 19 or erennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 3.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2
3

10. Headcuts ;P:7
1
2
3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R_ Hvdrnlnnv (Suhtntnl = 4.5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 O 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.
C. Bioloqv (Subtotal = 4.25
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; ACW = 0.75' OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 9/22/08 Project: Holden Bch Middle School Latitude: 33.959397
Evaluator: Corey Novak Site: UT to Lockwood Folly river Longitude: 78.271476
Total Points: 15.25 Other Holden Beach quad
Stream is at least intermittent County: Brunswick
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits T
; 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees O 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls Co 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Vo =?
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 4
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season O 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris Co 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.25
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
0 0.5
0.5 1
1 1.5
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; ACW = 0.75. OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
USACE AID#
DWQ#.
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .-a
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: `
1. Applicant's name: Brian Riley - Thomas & Hutton 2. Evaluator's name: Corey Novak
3. Date of evaluation: 9/22/08
5. Name of stream: unnamed trib. to Lockwood Folly river
7. Approximate drainage area: 20 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 200 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
6. River basin: Lumber
8. Stream order:
10. County: Brunswick
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 33.959397 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -78.271476
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Google Earth
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
intersection of Cedar Grove Rd. and Stanley Rd.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): directional herring for utilities
15. Recent weather conditions: warm cloudy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: warm, clou
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE NO f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map. YES O 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
80 % Forested 10 % Cleared / Logged L Other
22. Bankfull width: 4 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 37
Evaluator's Signature LX? Date 9/25/08
This channel evaluation form is int n ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
4. Time of evaluation:
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0
4 0
5

(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) - - 1
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 5
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
.?
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
a
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access

0-5

0-4

0-2

0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
1
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 1
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 5
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 N/A
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
'

(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 2
i
*0 13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max points) 3

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0
-5
1
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 1
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0
3
0
5
0
F
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
-
-
0-6
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0
5

(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) - 4
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0
4
0
5
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) - - 0-5 0
(,' 1 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
0* (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 37
iicsc c11araCWFIsncs are not assesseo in coastal streams.
USACE AID#DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET `
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Brian Riley - Thomas & Hutton 2. Evaluator's name: Corey Novak
3. Date of evaluation: 9/22/08 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: unnamed trib. to Shallotte Creek
6. River basin: Lumber
7. Approximate drainage area: 2 acres 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Brunswick
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 33.959397 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -78.271476
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Google Earth
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
eastern crossing of Cedar Grove Rd. (east of Cedar Grove Church)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): directional boring for utilities
15. Recent weather conditions: warm, cloudy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: warm, clou
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map. YES O
21. Estimated watershed land use: 35 % Residential
30 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 3 feet
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
?n point? YE CD f yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
35 % Cleared / Logged o% Other (
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 22 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 1?Crif'?Y`? Date 9/25/08
This channel evaluation form is inte d d to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change- version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

# ECOREGION POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-1
0- 4
0- 4
1
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r-r
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
>-4 (no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 N/A
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 1
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0
5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) - 3

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
F, (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 0
H (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
e(
l7 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
? (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 0
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0
5 0
5

(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) - - 1
(? 1 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)-
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 22
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Brian Riley - Thomas & Hutton 2. Evaluator's name: Corey Novak
3. Date of evaluation: 9/22/08
5. Name of stream: unnamed trib. to Shallotte Creek
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Lumber
7. Approximate drainage area: 2 acres 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Brunswick
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 33.958084 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -78.289279
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Google Earth
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
western crossing of Cedar Grove Rd. (west of Cedar Grove Church)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): directic
15. Recent weather conditions: warm. cloud
16. Site conditions at time of visit: warm, cloudy
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE NO f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map. YES O 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 35 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
30 % Forested 35 % Cleared / Logged o% Other
22. Bankfull width. 6 feet
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 33 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ? V Date 9/25/08
This channel evaluation form is inte d to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the lnited States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
p" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
(extensive ebannelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 N/A
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
1
ya (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
a (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
E i (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 0
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
H

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 1
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
-)0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
1 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 33
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
???
v 1. ?
s •: r 17
y" ._E MACE`
Ise , F? A _ RGI WA E J
'C Middy Lookout sa..
River -?1 1
1?9 Z i ?' f `
jENTON RD SE ,.
r
t
Supply 1
61KE
VENN r O sw SOUtHp f \ Ul
SURN St I.e40n/Cralssroads
t
Oak Grove- Q4 BIKE
a NE?E? PD SVv
BIKE ?y TKFT SITE
o ` `9? q0 f7Tc sy ?
400 All
rd c, ?? F;n N RD Swa'? /> Sandy Hill SU
P? ?Sivev Town
EmpIPE 7-y
t CEDAR R
v LE CLEF '
?Uilrlc at :?.?? (?f`?_.
not mean( lc h
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer. Pg. 87 2003 SCALE 1" = 1 Mile
Brian Riley LMG
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. n 71)MANAi,IM. NII.RIJ F FFigure 1 Of 5
B
runswick County, NC 40-08-325 www.LMGroup.net icinity Map
Phone: [phone] •1.866.LMG.1078
September 2008 Fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 284n?
,K 1• U • y f i ?s ?,_ + V ,
InInkv Rd Ch
1
I 1 ? ,mss>? ?-'" * lµ f
48
?? •• . "G .? n
dpl
4
4 ( ` t
+- ? - * 111 Iy r J / ! 6/! - W \t (.' •• ??' .. J
?.
. • •. .^?• ' ~ l ?'/ `anti
51Vey Town .
i S 3.
CPrts
.
w v? h y /
46
43
j ' .. ? r . ^ fJ)
• ? Coast Gro
Z ! .
Sandpit
• • • •? dry. ? ` .i i r.. ?. w. w M ?? .r. ? ,+ .r ? ? _ r! ? ?_?// 7!
N
Ao 36
C?
44
I1 .
%
Boundaries are approxkoHle Hio CIE; IN
not meant to he ahsolf-ate
Map Source: Holden Beach Quadrangle 7.5 minute (topographic) pg. 87 1990. SCALE 1" - 2000'
Brian Riley LMG
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. LA?,NIAKAMNIINFbROLA 2 of 5
Brunswick County, NC Figure
40-08-325 www.LMGroup.net USGS Topgraphic Map
Phone: [phone] •1.866.LMG.1078
September 2008 Fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
*Boundaries are approximate and are
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: NRCS Soil Survey.
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Brian Riley
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. LMGk• f lil R Figure 3 of 5
Brunswick County, INC -"
40-08-325 www.LMGroup.net SOUS Map
Phone: [phone] •1.866.LMG.1078
September 2008 Fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
Map Source: 2004 NAPP Aerial Photography
SCALE 1 " = 2000'
Brian Riley
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. LMG , 'J I UK O, v Figure 4 of 5
Brunswick County, NC
40-08-325 www.LMGroup.net Aerial Photograph
Phone: [phone] •1.866.LMG.1078
September 2008 Fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
; ri Mk-Trio ii t, ai)ti(, JR ?
*Boundaries are approxiwHa a ?), o r?
not meant fin he ahsolute
Map Source: Holden Beach Quadrangle 7.5 minute (topographic) pg. 871990. SCALE 1" - 2000'
Brian Riley
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. LMnGIMINI GROUP Figure 5 of 5 11 Brunswick County, NC ` 11. " USGS Topgraphic Map
40-08-325 www.LMGroup.net with potential stream
Phone: [phone] •1.866.LMG.1078
September 2008 Fax: [phone] crossings
P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
•y 4
cz
G
cz
Q-
'C)
O
O
U-
y
v
:j
?r
`S
C-n1`"W'JI
J
rL'
k
LL.

l ll- : n
s
a
Cl

1'
L i.! L
e1 r_'
i
S
r
1 J
y /-
r
Q
f'11
J
A 1'`f^ s
Q'I
L v.
? W •1-
?.
ILA. r_? 'S•i ti R?
L.}
+C
S;
-t
r
C
a .r
e ; -t
T
i
? Lo u
© 1 1
F s
4 +I

F ? 't as
? { n
F :
a Z1 `
S' ?
L ;e .F y
T
C-1 u u aJ {

M
w
a

u 6.,
sc
4 (

G
L4
L
?
I- w Dr v: V
s
rlr' rr? ar ? ? ?° a
V "0
4 0 V 4 G
L L L• F.. yr't L• V
0 v 4 V
C?
.- r .- r 1- 0
P Ln
IL . dal & 0 E4
C4M4 Consultation G L3'vOLVMzke
Holden Park Project
Supple, North Carolina
F,CS Carolinas, LLP Project No. 13723
January 17, 2008
a ?
..-
Photograph 1: View of Shallotte Creek Tributary as it first crosses Cedar Grove Road
CAMA Consultation C ,agk,-UtL DMI I AZ
Holden Park Project
Supph; North Carolina
ECS Carolinas, LLP Proiect No.13723
,lonuary 17, 2008
t

?
? •
;N ..
n Y
? 9.
?
VM1 FO"
5 °a

E ,.?'R?+tF

•. t- d
f Afi
OW, ?7
-5 4" r 1?0,f.Iel f 7 }rt
34
R
yy Y ?
?Nl r
g
h 1. "',{?r ?ay 1??
`? L S. w qtr". 4 t?xw
1 ?
2
Photograph 2: View of Shallotte Creek Tributary at the
second Cedar Grove Road crossing
C'AAM Consultation
Holden Park Project
Supply, North Carolina
ECS Carolinas, LLP Project No. 13723
January 17, 2008

3
Photograph 3: View of Lockwood Folly River Tributary as it crosses Stanley Road
Unnamed tributary to Lockwood Folly River crossing Cedar Grove Rd., north side of road
Brian Riley
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. LM
Brunswick County, NC LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC Site Photographs
40-08-325 1 z Environmental Consultants
September 2008
Unnamed tributary to Lockwood Folly River crossing Stanley Rd.

i
77,
Unnamed tributary to Lockwood Folly River crossing Cedar Grove Rd., south
side of road
Brian Riley
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co.
Brunswick County, NC LMNAG SENT GROUP n . Site Photographs
40-08-325 1 z Env;ronmentai Consultants
September 2008
NOlO a1ax1yviW? • VN110atl°HlaO"
l.1Nf100 )101MSNn?Ag :1N31?0 Novag aoi8l -VN7 • vN Oa r3 Nlno9 NV Id N011 dO0? lOb'dWl Wb 32i1S
nrg • vioaoa?
?NIa33N? M
IyOyNO..1,N.fyNON.MN.N. a ? 5 AO E 13 3 H S `'
A1Nf100 N01MSNme :A1Nf100 lace zee (olg):xv?
09EE•'EE (016) : aNONd W 1O
50D9Z'? N JNIW"IIM Z 'T -
A11110V3 1VN011V38038 tot 31inS 1 °? VNIl02 V7 H120N A1N 00 NOIMSN tlB
wow
/ IVNOl1(1111SN1 °"oa"OIl"iselZ S9NIMV8a l3VdWl W`d381S
91
:J.11A110V (13SOdO8d .00 91141833NISN3 NO1..Ln";8 SVWOH.L

a
f
O 0J
N _ K Z O
m O WO I
rear =
rc?Q3u
W
> W O K J
Y U J W
J 4 ? U m
pW0.0
Opa OZO
u GG N3
JJ.mWC
O O w K O
~Oram
? m Z:)
X0.3 ?a
w
100 p0
c SZJ
? - e
c J g
U

c
v; s I
W K F I III
O
co
O
(v
O
c9
(D
Lfl
O
(l)
w
J
Q
U
Cl) O
I
I i - 3
_ .. 3 a
1i / I I? IIII I ?? W ? 3
1 I w w_
? W I \
\/ O
a J
W III z
wa I
aU
s a I I 'I ? i? w?
°a o3o II I _
a III II.
I
I r- I I ?
?, ? Vl4
? Iy
I
I,
(r ? I Ix
?,, III
;?I? ly IIII I'
1 Y?
W4
I ;III
???,_ III11 ??
W
? I
I y a
'IY f
i a0 a
w
a i of
- I
3 l _ ?I 30 Z3
d ?? I
03 200
v r - _'.Oq' N
3 K 1282 _.,I. r ?---i YJ.00' a
_ _ n 3ro
wpa4o
w
00o
p r
I 10.00' a
I -J
1 r
a33
a -
U ¢ Y
w -
O
O
?32
m- >
3
4. _ - E a w
-
?`?; tt OwOU
II
r
r?
3
as o ??-I I °
a_
w?w Mho
t
0
V 3 ,O
5 w
?I w
". 00
16T 00 / II '? ?... -
i
,2
X
STANLEY RO -Y
(SR 3PEE0 LIM T urrPO /W ! t -11_ j _ V 1
e -
f? m a
1
? p
O ??N d I 3
A?
3 _ - Ir 'I 3 w
o a oo °
w
. _ dooo' ° a
g - w
w a - a
to oo'
o w
m
7' i-
zoo' I
9Z:91:6 - 0002 'L o0 6mp')op>u-£Oa2800Z\S6m0 llw?ad pa dwl -4S\-ld lOON\6mP\2900Z\:N
r3i,va As SNOISIAU NOlONIMliIM tlNnOYVp HltlD" .I
HOtlaB TLLtlA{y NO16T1tlVHp VNIIOtltlDHJl108 N0003S SS080 10ddWI WV381S ,
.liNnoo NOIMSNnue :1N3110 sol sNnYe'NrNNVnve • rlonoa°
pN?H3?ti
Noo NaunH.crwoHa MAA.n o' i 9 AO b 13 ?IH S V
AlN(100 )40IMSNnda :A1Nf100 ?ese-aes loisl rrd _
osee-zee loss) : aNOHa m
&049Z'7N'M°i'?wwllM 2 y
J lI?I?V? 1VNOIl V321?3a 101311nS 1 pT VNIl02 V7 H1tl ON A1N 00 HOIMSN 129 0 0
/ 'IVNOIlf1111SN1 "OIld196lz SJNIM`d» I 13ddWI WV3»1S 3
w3?_
:,IlIAIlOV (33SOdOd O3 E)NIH33NISN3 NOlinH;g SVWOHl
C U u ^ f
o U s ? Q
z o = -
u
U N
r7 01-1
0 f7 cc
N
O 6m T
a -
to N_u
Z Q
U
O Lj LLJ
N J J?
?Q Q?
O U U W
=UO 0cn>
Q
W
Ir
ILH?
J En U
+I o a
p W d
-
-0
IL
n
C
?C
II
Fy ,
G!
i
N OD O co
to 'I ;I- V rn
cli
rq
0
0
9 I O
co t7
N N
?J
Z1

3111 Al SNOISIOU NOIONIIV?IM - NII VNIIOYVQ N1taN NOUO3S 32!09 'IVN011O3211a "IVOldAl
,oN N?V8B 8-LL DNIV 0187 IOYVN N1f10B
N71MBN tle'NVNNV?VB • vlotlotl?j
AlNnoo N'JIMSNnNe :1N3110
Nlaag
wooNOUnN-svwolu MMM ? N?
lace-zee misl ><.? ° ? 5 JO 5 13 N H S L
AlNnoo )43IMSNnHe :A1Nnoo ° W oool
OBEf- .
SO48Z'ON'NO '"o19NIWII
IwvM
A1I11OV31t/NOllt/3a03i1 {pt311lIS 0 1 S VNIl02V0H120N A1N 00N]IMSN !9
66.1
/ -Mouf1111SN1 °"°a"Olldlsstz SJNIMMI 1OVdWI MMIS
s
:A11AIlOV 03SOdOdd •00 `JNIN33NI9N3 No"nH v SVWOHJ
J
U p. c
c U ? .c
J
O
2 W
0 ?
Z
ww
J Z
WO
IX o
0
my
z

', I
1
I
-I 1
I \
I I
I
I

/?

U
co

I
_.... -.
_. _
_
?... - X
W
0-.

/ Z Q
? l w
1 ?
d W
ONISSOa3
c\j
°
Av]2AlS AO 10 I -?

j o 1

a

z I

J
- w -- , - - -

I /
I! I
I
1
1
I
I
I