20090835 Ver 1_401 Application_20090709

44??MCKIM&CREED
I To: NC DWQ, 401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION.
09-0835
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: July 30, 2009
PROJECT NO: 00824.0079 TASK NO: 2A
RE: Doctors Branch 404/410 Permit Application
TRANSMITTAL NO: PAGE 1 OF 1
WE ARE SENDING: ? Originals ® Prints ? Shop Drawings ? Samples
? Specifications ? Calculations ® Other - see below
Quantity Drawing No. Rev. Description Status
5 404/401 Permit Application Package H
1 $540 Check IM A

Issue Status Code: A. Preliminary B. Fabrication Only C. For Information D. Bid
E. Construction F. For Review & Comments G. For Approval H. See Remarks
Action Status Code: 1. No Exceptions Taken 2. Make Corrections Noted 3. Other
4. Amend & Resubmit 5. Rejected - See Remarks
REMARKS: Please contact us with any questions. Thank you,
OS ospr?R 9
r?y?'gt?
ry
?o?
1730 Varsity Drive Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27606 919/233-8091 Fax [phone]
cc:
McKIM & CREED, PA
Signed -
Dale Hyatt, EI
S:\0824 -City of Wilmington\0079 -Doctors Branch\ 10-Comm\ 19-Transmittal Letters\LOT-DWQ-07.30.09.doc
Updated 1-1-08
.y
• i
'?osFr?? r: r 8,
qti? 4Yti, o?
sr `?? 9
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info: 0 9- 0 8 3 5 4
PA UP
1. Project Name: Doctors Branch Environmental Restoration Project '`?...__ -MOMW
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: City of Wilmington .s
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Sterling Cheatham
"Agent authorization letter needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: Doctors Branch between Hearthside Drive and Chippenham Drive
6. Subdivision Name: Stonington
7. City: Wilmington
8. County: New Hanover
9. Lat: N 34.172533 Long: W 77.901167 (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Wilmington
11. Waterway: Doctors Branch which is a direct tributary to Barnard Creek and the Cape
Fear River
12. Watershed: Cape Fear (HU# 03030005)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 27
X General Permit # Water Oualitv Certification Nos. 3626, 3689
Turisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by the Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity/Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
',
.>`s?r,.
v MCKIM&CREED
v
ENGINEERS
S U R V E Y O R S
P L A N N E R S
July 30, 2009
Ms. Emily Hughes
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28402
M&C 00824-0079 (41)
RE: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 27
and Water Quality Certification Nos. 3626 and 3689
Doctors Branch Environmental Restoration Project
Wilmington, North Carolina
The Doctors Branch Environmental Restoration Project is located along
approximately 1,596 linear feet of stream from Hearthside Drive to Chippenham
Drive in Wilmington, North Carolina (USGS Site Map, enclosed). The stream
flows into Barnard's Creek and then directly into the Cape Fear River. The
purpose of this project is to restore the geomorphic stability and enhance the
aquatic habitat of this reach of Doctors Branch and one adjacent tributary.
Applicant Name: City of Wilmington, Mr. Sterling Cheatham
Mailing Address: City Hall PO Box 1810, Wilmington, NC 28402
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: [phone]
Street Address of Project: between Hearthside Drive and Chippenham Drive
Waterway: Doctors Branch
Basin: Cape Fear (HU# 03030005)
City: Wilmington
County: New Hanover
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N34.172533o, W77.901167o
USGS Quadrangle Name: Wilmington
Venture IV Building
suite 500 Doctors Branch is an urbanized perennial coastal stream that has been
significantly affected by development, particularly since the 1980's. The section
1730 Varsity Drive of Doctors Branch considered for stream stabilization begins. at twin 54 inch
Raleigh, NC 2 7 6 0 6 culverts underneath Hearthside Drive. An existing sewer pipe runs adjacent to
the stream (on stream right) and one sanitary aerial passes over the stream
approximately 800 feet downstream of the twin culverts. Stormflow is released
9 1 9.2 3 3 .8 0 9 1 onto an approximately sixty-foot long rip rap pad and passes over a hydraulic
Fax [phone]
www.mckimcreed.com
jump at a lower elevation from this riprap pad. The stream then travels southwest in a
straightened, steep (2:1) trapezoidal channel also lined with smaller rip rap. This stone was
placed recently (within the last few years) by the City of Wilmington in response to adjacent
homeowner concerns. The stream length from the main riprap apron through the smaller stone
material is approximately 200 feet; this section has little vegetation.
The stream then enters a thin riparian area with steep side banks (from forty-five degrees to
ninety degree banks plus over hangs in some locations). The substrate changes from large
stones immediately to a sand bed that runs at an approximate slope of 0.25%. The Rosgen
stream classification for the stream at this point all the way to the culvert underneath
Chippenham Drive is a GSc. The stream exhibits a marginal riffle pool system as the channel
has been straightened historically and there is little room for this incised channel to migrate
laterally. Banks are steep but generally are held together by riparian plant root mass. The
stream meanders slightly as it approaches Chippenham Drive and erosion is threatening private
property along Amherst Court, Stockbridge Place and Woodstock Drive.
Soils
The immediate stream channel is located within the Johnston soil series, which is a very poorly
draining sandy loam soil with rapid permeability which form on major stream flood plains as
described in the 1977 version of the Soil Survey of New Hanover County, North Carolina and is
listed as a North Carolina hydric soil.
Vegetation
Approximately 1300 feet of the 1500 foot stream is bordered by a riparian buffer which ranges
from a few feet to 20 feet in some locations. The stream buffer and side slopes are dominated by
Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginianna) and invasive Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) with
other less prevalent species such as red maple and trident red maple (Acer rubrum) and green
briar (Smilex rotundifolia). The stream banks themselves are also dominated by Sweetbay
Magnolia and Chinese Privet but substantial slope areas support moss growth indicating low
light conditions along the stream edge presumably due to a maturing tree canopy over the
stream itself.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On February 20th, 2008, April 11, 2008 and March 3, 2009 a wetland specialist from McKim &
Creed delineated (flagged in the field) and classified on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Routine On-Site Determination Method.
This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.' There are
two jurisdictional wetland areas located within the project area (Wetlands 1 and 2). Routine
' Environmental Laboratory. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
v? MCKIM&CREED
On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetlands 1 and 2 and adjacent upland areas are enclosed.
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ)z, USACE, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
guidance. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheets representative of the main stem and Unnamed Tributary (UT) have been enclosed
(SCPI - SCP2).
Doctors Branch is within the Cape Fear River Basin (HU# 03030005)3 and is rated "Class C
waters" by the NCDWQ. Linear footage and acreage of on-site jurisdictional waters are
summarized in Table 1, below.
Jurisdiction
SCP NCDWQ USACE Approx. Approx
No.
No. / Stream Stream Length .
Acreage
Feature USACE/EPA DP No. Classification Assessment Linear (ac)
Rapanos Intermittent Score Score Feet (If)
Classification / Perennial
Drs Branch Perennial RPW Perennial 1 33.5 57 1436 0.26
UT to Drs

Branch
Seasonal non-RPW Intermittent
2
14.5
43
160
0.01
Channel Subtotal: 1,596 0.27
Wetland 1 Ad'acent toephemeral stream W3, W4 N/A N/A N/A 0.01
Wetland 2 Adjacent to Perennial RPW W5, W6 N/A N/A N/A 0.04
Wetland Subtotal N/A 2.38
On-Site Total 8,504 0.05
Doctors Branch Mainstem (perennial RPW)
The 1,436 linear foot portion of Doctors Branch main stem that was evaluated starts at twin
culverts under Hearthside Drive and terminate at twin culverts under Chippenham Drive and
demonstrates a perennial flow condition (Relatively Permanent Water or RPW) under normal
weather conditions). This reach was scored at 33.5 points per the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1; a score between 20 and 29 is considered
an indication of an intermittent stream (<=19 is ephemeral, >=30 is considered perennial). It had
an USACE Stream Quality Assessment Score of 57 (out of 100) and scored fairly low mainly due
to extensive anthropologic activity (channel straightening) which has caused incisement,
sloughing banks, reduced sinuosity and impaired aquatic habitat through destruction of the
previously existing riffle pool pattern. The lower portion of the stream upstream from the twin
culverts under Chippenham Drive is a low quality wetland (wetland #2).
2 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0
3 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974.
v MCKJM&CREED
Unnamed Tributary (intermittent RPW)
This tributary to the main branch is fed by 66 acres of drainage of which a portion is still
wetland, but the installation of a road crossing (Woodstock Drive) has cut this portion of
wetland off from the tributary area withuz the project reach. This tributary has been previously
altered by anthropologic grading and development activity. Surface flow from residences and
streets are conveyed during and immediately after storm events only and the ditch is
overgrown and dominated by Chinese privet. Hydric soil was present but not pronounced and
wetland vegetation 'achieving a significant influence' was not present though most of this reach
but a small wetland (wetland #1) does exist roughly halfway between Woodstock Drive and the
confluence with the main stem. Stream Identification Scoring indicated that this ephemeral
stream (score: 14.5) but given the presence of upstream wetlands as well as the small pocket of
wetlands existing within the tributary it is therefore apparent that the stream must pass water
enough to seasonally feed this wetland pocket. The USACE Stream Quality Score was very low
at 43.
Wetland #1
Wetland #1 consists of a very small pocket (0.01 acre) of palustrine forested, broad-leaf
deciduous seasonally flooded but partially drained and ditched (PFO 1/2Cd) wetland with
limited functional value. We believe that the construction of Woodstock Drive and placement of
riprap downstream of the culvert at Woodstock Drive has permanently impacted a wetland that
at one time may have been more extensive. An obvious wetland exists above this culvert at
Woodstock Drive and the installation of the culvert may have in fact enlarged the wetland foot
print upstream of the culvert. Wetland, plant and hydric soil indicators are not very strong but
do lead us to believe that this area is wet for at least two weeks out of the growing season each
year.
Wetland #2
Wetland #2 consists of a somewhat larger pocket (0.04 acre) of PFO 1/2Cd within the mainstem
stream channel itself upstream from the Chippenham Drive road crossing.
McKim & Creed coordinated with the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for cultural
and archeological information of relevance for each site. McKim & Creed forwarded a letter to
SHPO on January 7, 2008. In a letter response dated January 24, 2008, SHPO responded that
they are aware of no historic resources on the site. Therefore, the agency has no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.McKim & Creed solicited information pertaining to rare, threatened
and endangered species, historic structures/areas, existing cemeteries and the like through use
of documents such as US Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species
of Concern, and Candidate Species for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. A letter was forwarded
to the NC Natural Heritage Program on January 7, 2008. In response to this request, the Natural
Heritage Program dated January 16, 2008 indicated that the agency has no record of rare
v? MCKIM&CREED
species, significant natural communities, significant natural heritage areas or
conservation/man aged areas at the site or within a mile of the site.
Purpose and need for the Project:
DWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers and lakes
which define the best uses for protection (e.g., swimming, fishing, drinking water supply). All
surface waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C waters (fishable,
swimmable). Other classifications include additional levels of protection for primary water
contact recreation (Class B) drinking water supply (Class WS) and Doctors Branch is listed as
Class C waters.
Environmental stresses to riparian and in stream habitat along the main stem of Doctors Branch
have mainly been brought about by two mechanisms; (1) three plus centuries of forest clearing,
farming and agricultural land use change followed by (2) several decades of increased
watershed imperviousness due to development of the City of Wilmington and surrounding
areas. The majority of development for the drainage area to Doctors Branch has occurred
without adequate stormwater control.
The study reach is a Rosgen G5. The inherent sandy nature of the underlying soil, along with
the urbanization of the contributing watershed, as well as the channelization work, has led to a
substantial bank erosion condition (approximately 0.15 to 1.9 tons/ft/year on average or 220 to
2,760 tons annually). This is to be expected since the stream is attempting to migrate laterally
(increase sinuosity) to decrease stream slope and increase flow capacity. If space were available,
then over time enough bank would be eroded to form a new bankfull bench at a lower
elevation. The stream type would continue through the succession pattern ending at an E
stream type. However, due to the sanitary system on stream right and the subdivision on
stream left, the stream channel has incised severely due to the lateral limits imposed by these
constraints and bank erosion is threatening private property. The pre-developed bank height
ratio (BHR) would have been close to 1.0 and the current average BHR is 4.4 (BHR's of greater
than 1.2 are generally viewed as unstable).
McKim & Creed set our design goals in descending order of importance as follows:
• Private property protection
• Bank stabilization
• Utility protection (both the buried line and the exposed lateral line)
• Ensure that the City will have adequate future maintenance access
• Determine that the proposed grading will not significantly affect the 100-
year flood plain
• Minimize potential permitting issues
• Create mitigation 'banking' stream footage
v? MCKIM&CREED
• Habitat enhancement
• Possible riparian wetland creation (possible mitigation banking)
• limit impacts to trees greater than twelve inches in good health
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Restoration work will result in an improvement in stream stability and ecological
function. Impact to the existing 0.05 acres of wetlands is unavailable due to the wetland
location within the stream channel. However, creation of bankfill benders should produce
more than 0.05 acres of new wetland along shelf areas. Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All channel work will
be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3689.
Proposed Impacts to jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Perermial RPW waters (the main stem) total 1436 feet and impacts to an
intermittent stream (the UT) of 160 feet for a total of 1596 feet of impact. Unavoidable impacts to
wetlands include Wetlands 1 and 2 for a total of 0.04 acre of impact. However, it should be
noted that 1,715 feet of new stream will be created (a net gain of 119 feet.
On behalf of the City of Wilmington, McKim & Creed is submitting a Pre-Construction
Notification Application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General
Condition No. 27 and pursuant to Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 27.
Additionally, per previous discussion with the City of Wilmington and the US ACE, the Doctors
Branch stream restoration site will serve as a mitigation bank for future City stream impact
projects. The description of this process, including credit determination, monitoring,
scheduling, etc are all described in a separate July 28 Doctors Branch Site Specific Mitigation
Plan letter to Mr. David Mayes; a copy of that letter with appropriate mapping has been
included with this submission for your review and approval.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-233-8091 or tschueler@.mckimcreed.com should you
have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Sincerely,
McKim & Creed, PA

Tim Schueler, PE
Stormwater Group Manager
v? MCK &CREED
Enclosures: USGS 7.5" Wilmington, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS New Hanover County Soil Survey
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (two total)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (two total)
Approved Jurisdicational Determination Form (SCP1)
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (WI to W6)
Representative Photographs
Easement Acquisition and Preliminary Plats
Site Specific Mitigation Plan Letter
Doctors Branch Stream Restoration Project - 90% Design Plans
Wetlands Delineation Survey
cc: Mr. David Mayes - City of Wilmington
cc: NC DWQ 401/Wetlands Unit
4i:!?MCKIM&CREED
1 2326000 2329000 2332000 2335000 2338000
c
C
C
C
C
c
t
C
C
C
'C
tr
f .?a?N fr - ,.?!•'•Y nt `, ? ? h6 ? RLCt? ??? ? .; ? ? ? -r ?.. - ?? /
.NSS=Y r.. Ga1Jt. } I ?.aC - , J ` t 1 ++++ r'..S
Kv-
Sdl
Hearthside Drive
St. Andrews Drive
Cape Few '
? 1XJ ?.? ? . .. ? i -r .-. ? 1 ?... • , v• ? Acadsssnv t?_. ? ti wh.
r = , rI jf? Slv
!° + C i ,l\?• / ? III' c 1X ,, - ? y11?,? ,.I -. i{ I ,37"r ? ? -
f, 04
???(- { y1 ( w I
-30_. • _
28
-'-
' stn+??. (r( r - ? ?i?J J ? I
y .m h + .j LI
j 13
r Sliver La?c W
2 { p? ' 4*
E N +k) \
2E
7.5' Wilmington, NC CLIENT: City of Wilmington .
PROJECT: Doctors Branch v MC M&CREED
Topographic Quadrangle LOCATION: wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
0 2s. soo t,ooo co z'rco MAP k
sh
Feed nturo IV Bulltling, Suite $00
N DATA: 1290 Vanity Dr., Raleigh NC 276011
Scale: 1:24,000 1 inch equals 2,000 feet DATE: July, 29, 2009 PREPARED BY: DNH REVIEWED BY: TCS 910.23
www.mcMlmdeed
cned.com
,,,, . .... - or guarrrnees regaraing me accuracy of completeness of geographic featurm shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting me.
00 M
O
O O
N -
M N
N O)
OD m
0
m
c
0
m`
U
rQ
o
Oa
z N
T p
c cn
OE
Um
L ?
>in
0,-
C: U
CU
2 m
3m`
O N
Z?
m
O
CO
Z
T
3
O ?
N O
N (n
U) m
= (D
00-
O
O
mU
?Fo
0
Z
8
N Z
?D
0c
N O
Co N
? N
.+ C
mO
z0
D
m
0
[0
U „
L m
0
O 5;
Zy
> O
C U)
o E
U m
0
O L
C U
[6 C
2m
3m`
al
Z ?
co
0
Cn
N N

CL
0 O o

En
N D1
c

N
Q a)
L
N
C .L.+ >
a) m
_0 -O
N
3 c
0 EO a) '2N _0 cu
C a)` C
- r= a)
j i., y a) -o
N = .-
-E O
f9 M
°? C 01 E
- V a)
m
?> r-
O a)
U cu
N
O
Z
O
U m E `
U L
o
C14 Q
%
m E m T
oar 0
ZO r +

a
GEa?a)
EL
r3 Z
N

-6 E
b
o?

C G

co
Q a)

U N

_ O N

L .

3` c9
a/ o 2 ai In 02 U a?i o o Q a
O 0 L m
?w
N° 2 N
X3 o LL,
> 6 O_ ? Ui >
m
E
o
Z -
N
U
A 0
fl. N o
2 0
c: o
0. ?•
a
i
m E
t
il
y m a)
L 75
-.0 m 0
S 'y
2 A
m O t0/J N
,o
CL C C D a) Q)
> N a:5 (n
Q O
0. >., 0 CU J
Z in
a) -_ Z N
a) -C N C.0
O
O
O C 0 T 2 N N (9 ? CO .N
O O) ) C

cu
N E
N O
(u
m? >.
N `8
N
O U 7
'
N
a W ] Ln
U) 'O
7 C Q co

a) m O
O p...0
O. m N?
N N
-Fa
cm D -0
O
C
cu E
rn3 rn° LO
(
0Q 0 0.a)
> N N p Qa)
a E m E
0.-m

O> `o E o°) o

U?U ?0

P:S

Lou)
m L
o
H o.?:: o
tq
o.
C
m
o
N ?
N U
D r >
N

C L p N m = L -°
O O
? °- O
'9
?
Q
c w
E
?°
p 61
2 p
? O
?
m L o L_ L H N N a) U L

>
O
0
_
U) O :?
U
O
U)
•p?
-
uJ _
O
0
Z
W
(3 -!
d ce d 6
LL 2
r C H
m
LL
CL

o \{
1
o
CL m

W F
J
o
Q O
Q c
o

l
_0
C
G N ?
N Y ? U1
`m
^ c

0 c

m
Y

m 5 n
-- m

a v
...

a °

co
?

3
° ca °

m

° o

°

o
CL

o
vai 0

W
?

°

U)

a

m
0

o
a
Q m
y N
'p LL 3
p
C O T N
O
p
L >
N >
f0 D
C N
> N N U
C
N , O
U C
._ 'O
C N
>
_
'O
O

Q
U) _
m _
O
co U U
CD
CD
co
J c0 _
d
x
0
U)
0
U)
U)
U)
U> 0
co
m a
c ?
?? ?+? )
a ?
CD Cl)
O -
O O
N N
O 0
N
01
°' a
T
m
Z
oU
N O
Q) U
?L >
? m
= N
to 0
Q O
oU
m
C
O
N
Z
N
C)
fq
a1 N
V ?
0 C
0
aNi y
? co
d
N
7
m o
Z U
?F?
Soil Map-New Hanover County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Drs Branch Stream Soils Map
New Hanover Coun ty, North Carolina (NC129)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Per cent of AOI
Be Baymeade fine sand, 1 to 6

percent slopes 5.6
12.7%
JO Johnston soils 9.2 20.80/c
Kr Kureb sand, 1 to 8 percent
slopes 3.4

i 7.8%,
Le Leon sand 21.1 48.0%
Ly Lynn Haven fine sand I 2.3 5.3%
Mu Murville fine sand 1.31 2.9%j
Rm Rimini sand, 1 to 6 percent
slopes 1.2 2,g%
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
44.1 I
100.0%1
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
8/28/2008
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
McKim & Creed, PA
Attn: Tim Schueler, PE
1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV Building, Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-233-8091
[e-mail]
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington, DA # SAW- 2008 - 3275
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: New Hanover City: Wilmington
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 34.171672° N
Long. 77.903092° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 232,404 & W3,785,001
Name of nearest waterbody: Cape Fear River
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1630 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class:
Stream Flow: 1450'perennial, 180' intermittent (side tributary)
Wetlands: 0 acres.
Cowardin Class: None
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non-Tidal: Doctors Branch Stream
1
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 121912008
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre-construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
2
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should 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: Wilmington
(194Z 1948,1970,1979,1993).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:New Hanover County.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Wilmington.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): 1975,1983,1998.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Other information (please specify):
3
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
Estimated
Site
number
Latitude
Longitude Cowardin
Class amount of
aquatic Class of
aquatic
resource in resource
review area
1 - Main 34.171672°N 77.903092°W R2SB4 1450' Section 10
Tributary - Non-
Tidal
2 - Site 34.171672°N 77.903092°W R2SB4 180 linear Section 10
Tributary feet - Non-
Tidal

09-0 83 5
O?
ot WA
T F9QG
O K
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number: Water Quality Cert. M6 and 3689
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ® Yes ? No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Doctor's Branch Stream Restoration Project
2b. County: New Hanover
2c. Nearest municipality / town: City of Wilmington
2d. Subdivision name: Stonington
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: na
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: multiple; see attached list
3b. Deed Book and Page No. multiple; see attached list
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): na
3d. Street address: na
3e. City, state, zip: na
3f. Telephone no.: na
3g. Fax no.: na
3h. Email address: na
Page I of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: City of Wilmington
4b. Name: Mr. Sterling Cheatham
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
City of Wilmington
4d. Street address: City Hall PO Box 1810
4e. City, state, zip: Wilmington, NC 28402
4f. Telephone no.: Mr. Dave Mayes is point of contact at 910-341-5880
4g. Fax no.: 910-341-7801
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Timothy Schueler, PE
5b. Business name
(if applicable): McKim & Creed, PA
5c. Street address: 1730 Varsity Drive
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27606
5e. Telephone no.: 919-233-8091
5f. Fax no.: 919-233-8031
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): multiple
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 34.172533 Longitude: - 77.90117
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 2.80 acres of limit of disturbance acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Doctors Branch
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Cape Fear
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The current land use is as a drainage swale for residential development; a portion of which is within existing storm drain
or sanitary easements.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.05 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1,596
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Stream restoration (Priority 1) to stabilize severely eroded banks through natural vegetation and stable geofluvial
geometry.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Priority I grading of banks and creation of bankfull benches with stable pools and riffles via construction equipment
(excavators, etc) working in the dry (pump arounds will be set up). Plan, form and profile will be modified. Design relies
heavily on native plant installation and subsequent root growth. Limited grade control features will be installed along with
geo-lifts in select bends to permanently protect an adjacent sanitary sewer line.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
Comments: ACE staff have previously visited the site.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: na
Name (if known): na Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
na
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No
? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
G. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e.
Type
of jurisdiction 2f.
number -
Permanent (P) or Type of impact Type of wetland
if Forested :
(Co- 404, 10 Area of impact

Temporary T) (
known) DWQ - n-404, other) (acres)
W1 ®P ? T fill PFOA ® Yes ® Corps 0
01
? No ? DWQ .
W2 ®P ? T fill PFOA ® Yes ® Corps 0
04
? No ? DWQ .
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ?DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.05
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact
number - Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact

Permanent (P) or (PER) or
intermittent (Corps - 404, 10
DWQ - non-404 stream
width length
(linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? ,
other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P [] T perennial RPW Dain PER Corps
ste ? INT DWQ $ 1436
S2 ® P ? T intermittent RPW Drs -] PER
® INT ®Corps
? DWQ 3 160
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ

S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ

S6 [] P ? T ? PPER Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h
. Total stream and tributary impacts
1596
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T)
01 ? P ? T na na na na
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 na na na na na na na na
P2
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, the n complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impact to the existing 0.05 acres of wetland is unavoidable due to the wetland location within the stream channel to be
restored; Priority I design requires reshaping and filling entire channel.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All work will be conducted in the dry meaning pump-arounds will be employed to maintain baseflow and minimize erosion
during construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules.
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no
explain why.
,
Comments: ? Yes ? No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: project is environmental restoration and
no imperviousness will be created.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Wilmington
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply [I HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a . Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? [Z Yes ? No
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ?Yes No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This environmental project will stabilize existing sources of sediment and not create any new imperviousness.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facilit
y.
na
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes
No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes
No
impacts?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ?
Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
McKim & Creed solicited information pertaining to rare, threatened and endangered species, historic structures/areas,
existing cemeteries and the like through use of documents such as US Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. A
letter was forwarded to the NC Natural Heritage Program on January 7, 2008. In response to this request, the Natural
Heritage Program dated January 16, 2008 indicated that the agency has no record of rare species, significant natural
communities, significant natural heritage areas or conservation/managed areas at the site or within a mile of the site.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA fisheries web site mapper: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH-Mapper/map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
McKim & Creed coordinated with the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for cultural and archeological
information of relevance for each site. McKim & Creed forwarded a letter to SHPO on January 7, 2008. In a letter
response dated January 24, 2008, SHPO responded that they are aware of no historic resources on the site.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA mapping
Mr. Sterling Cheatham JAW, 1,1K 0I
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Ap licant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C,4 N+ " ?! . ! N N "- "- " N N N N .N-i N N
" v dI V W -11 " dI lzv zr d? lzt
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
U U U V U U U U U U U V V U U U U U
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
0000000 0000000000
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
d d? a'' d? d d d d d d. a. a a? , a? a
3 3 3 3 3 3? 3? 3 3 3 3 3?? 3 3
? U? w w w Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q U U U U
d d d F F F F F F u C7 C7 C7 u x x x w
° 0 0 0 0
o w w w W W d
C'4 C m ?. x x Q a4 ?4 dL Q Q Q Q E
8008888
o
O ?+
6 U) U) x
O Q\ N M M
0 0 0 0 0
Ln 1-1
?
m
2 O, O " - ti N 1 N
CD O
) ? .
-.
-
c
V W eH
O
xIncu
z
a
J
W z
t3
to
N
Z
z
'0
U
a
w
O z 6 r? z Q U >z u V a d
8
Z m U m w a ,2S w
?Wz5z?au°a?au? W?
W x W z 3. z
C) Q¢ z Q H e w
F
az???w W wzoaa4wz?Ll W ?
O OU z U W W a P4 U) > z
w w a ? 3?? O ???., x
O ? u w x ?
>
V? LO rr N 10 D\ W ?D 0 0 M 0 0 W
N N O N O O ?D u) W N M d? d? --? N O D\ M
10 m 10 N m L N N N X Xu') N M X M
C.
A mm G, (?2 N M 4 W Lo 4" N o ?? N N M
W
W
Q
x
0
CD 'o \D Nch ti O uu) M a, n a, ? ma, 'D r, N
O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O o 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N Cl O O O O O O O O Cl Cl O O O O O O O
'
?
M u
N d+ N" N N .
i N Os Lo O N D\ m ?D Lo
O 'D D\ O O M T u7 O N - u2 N M dt 'D " m
'D u7 't eH M M N- O O - O O O D\ O

10 a! N ti O T o0 00 C? W N ?D u) M N N d!

z
Cn '" Si N N N N N . .?-
. .?-
. .?-
.
(d ski .
.
.
F m a\ m a m m a D1 m m m m m m m m m m

•^?'?
I
O Cl O O O N u) M u7 n m Lo N
u) to
u) cD c) Lo?
C
V M m M M M M M m M M M m M
M M
M M
?2
5 fd
M M M M M M M M m m m M M m m M M M
v U 3 0
s z o 0 o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O s.
O 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
r
N
M
O
u
Z
?. y=
4 w c;\
A 6 r? A
N M d? Q? O .-
??
--? ?? N N N N N N m M M m m m 0
3 ?
W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
y„ r+
O
O O OD x m m m m m w w= m m m m oo w m m N
V 0 0 0 0 C
0

.5
O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
l
Ci O O O O Cl Cl O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
N b)

"D ?D 'D 'D
u cD C$ c) C,
o C, C,
Q
3 Q H ?
N
P.

o
u

3
N N M W M O N M ?D N M .--i N M V?
.--? N N N N ?D lD \D \D N N N N

EMMA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
January 16, 2008
Ms. Derry Bray
McKim & Creed
200 MacKenan Court
Cary, SIC 27511
Subject: Doctors Branch Streambank Stabilization Project; Wilmington, New Hanover County
Dear Ms, Bray:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within 0.25-mile of the project area.
About 0.25 mile to the north of the project area, but not downstream of the site, is the South Wilmington
Sandhills natural area, now a part of a City of Wilmington or New Hanover County park. Thus, this
natural area would not be impacted by the streambank stabilization work,
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database websitc at www.ncnlip.org for a listing of
rare ;plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<http://nbpweb,ejir.state.ne.us/iihis/public/g,map75aniain.pi tml>, The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help„ for more information.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free, This service provides site
specific information on Cl5 layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas, The NC +OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (E`J) ID
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
?dHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <www.neonemap.corn/data,la#ml>,
or email NC QneMap at <dataq@ncmail,net>.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or creed further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeCrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 1100/6 Post Consumer Paper
vMcIQN4&CREED
January 7, 2008
P L A N N E 11 S
200 MacKenan Court
Cary, NC 27611
919 233 3091
Fax [phone]
r,vr>v mct:imareed r.orn
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
,Attn: Mr. Harry Legrand
RE: Doctors Branch Streambanls Stabilization Project
City of Wilmington, NC
Dear Mr. Legrand:
E N GI N E E R S
SURVEYORS
MCE No. 0824.0078
The City of Wilmington is evaluating streambank stabilization concepts for the impaired
tributary identified as Doctors Branch, McKim & Creed (MC11) is requesting information
on behalf of the City of Wilmington. The project area encompasses approximately 1500
linear feet of stream with a 100 foot wide project area, located near the intersection of
Chippenham Drive and Saint Andrews Drive (see attached vicinity maps). The land use
for the surrounding area of the site is mostly residential.
As per North Carolina state law for the preservation of areas of natural significance, we
are requesting information regarding the presence of rare, threatened, or endangered
species on or near the above-referenced project. Please forward any information you
may have at your earliest convenience:
McKim & Creed
200 MacKenan Ct
Cary, NC 27511
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request.
Sincerely,
Kerry Bray
McK1M & CREED, P.A.
Historical Topographic Map

?1 vf4% Ovz ???l

Cape Fraf

v ? ?4,/ l 30
? Golf Cours? ;? ?y`? 4
I ? Q?'? \.
t_ ?,
. ?

I \
(? '•` \ It .. ) ?\ c
:? "tl ?'??-' - ! 1 ?' a Sulr ltkrn ' --. _ I\ I ,
`
?
r 1 ,. ,
f . ?_.?
Sol er

N TARGET QUAD
NAME SITE NAME: Doctors Branch CLIENT: McKim & Creed Engineers
: WILMINGTON ADDRESS: Chippenham Dr/Saint Andrews Dr CONTACT: Kerry Bray
T MAP YEAR: 1993 Wilmington, NC 28412 INQUIRY#: 2111572.4
SERIES: 7.5 LAT/LONG: 34.1718 / 77.9031 RESEARCH DATE: 01/03/2008
SCALE: 1:24000
i

Doctors Branch Streambank Stabilization
City of Wilmington, NC
Michael 17. Easley, Governor
Lisbedi C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey), Crow, llcputy Secretary
January 24, 2008
Derry Bray
Merin & Creed, PA
200 MacKenan Court
Cary, IBC 27511
A N 3 12008
MCKIM U
David Brook, Director
Re: Doctors Branch Streambank Stabilization Project, New Hanover County, ER 08-0017
Dear Mr. Bray:
Thank you for your letter of January 7, 2008, concerning the above project,
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed,
The above comments ate made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CF R
Part 800,
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration, If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579, In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-refexenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
L-44t?-
eter Sandbeck
wia "--&&4t
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Histot' eservation Office
Peter 13. `>td
i to Office of Archives and History
D Division of Historical Resources
Location; 109 East Jones Strccr, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4017 Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh ?NC: 27699.4417 Telephone/Pax; ()19) 807-6570/807-0599
v
v McKfI /I&CREED
January 7, 2008
P I. A N N E R S
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Attn: Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
RE: Doctors Branch Streambank Stabilization Project
City of Wilmington, NC
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
E 11 G I N E E R S
SURVEYORS
MCE No, 0824-0078
The City of Wilmington is evaluating streambank stabilization concepts for the impaired
tributary identified as Doctors Branch, McKim & Creed (MCE) is requesting information
can behalf of the City of Wilmington. The project area encompasses approximately 1500
linear feet of stream with a 100 foot wide project area, located near the intersection of
Chippenham Drive and Saint Andrews Drive (see attached vicinity maps).
As per North Carolina State Law for the protection of properties in the National Register,
we are requesting information regarding tine presence of historical, eulfiural and
archaeological items on or near the above referenced project. Please forward any
information you may have at your earliest convenience,-
McKim & Creed
200 MacKenan Ct
Cary, NC 27511
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request.
Sincerely,
/" ?W`t" 'J'9'
200 MacKenan Court
Kerry Bray
C irv IJC 2751 I
919.23,-1 ;0qI
Fa, 919 233.£3431
McKIM & CREED, P.A.
iv.-.v mckmmcreed.com

Historical Topographic Map

All
A /
it f-/11%

\ / ?S
tr ?, S

.01

r ,
1
Sri ,
• l - 1

TARGET QUAD SITE NAME: Doctors Branch CLIENT: McKim & geed Engineers
N NAME: WILMINGTON ADDRESS: Chippenham Dr/Saint Andrews Dr CONTACT: Kerry Bray
1 MAP YEAR: 1993 Wilmington, NC 23412 INQUIRY#: 2111572.4
LAT/LUNG: 34,171$/77,9031 RESEARCH DATE: 01/03/2008
SERIES: 7.5
SCALE: 1:24000
17,Ti St. tY =- ,� •Q. '` # 1% / ! t+'.i
Project Area
r �. � j � A j r p •
• + x!'.111 • °
As 'r•.1 .r + IT .. 1� W. �,'{`,.� ��• nti,•'t.� 1 r ��
� woof '' s� • s {�; � t: e � � }y� ��, `.1 �'
N
> AA _ l7hsJa r
NI
o ! � a, a elf. r 1 •�,�; c' D • t
i '
i
etc ; m h � �\ � � . � � � ' •' `� , .
(A
} SQ
"�. �ai�•, ' o ` �• `• ��^� �a`��,'`+''i°\� of '
?*iyp 1. r a •.a4� ,� •%f. • l l�fy�� # 1>r1,� •.s
1 inch equals 500 feet
Nayn�arket Ln t
Flre_side Ct
Feet
0 250 500 1,000
LeathervJ)od Drr�'cote Crr
too Wilmington
City Limits
ff
Ylof
Project Area
Ari ` o New Hanover
County
Doctors Branch Streambank Stabilization
City of Wilmington, NC

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: q.?.tas rjc,,aGL. Latitude: 7 2-
Evaluator: Site: Longitude. 77. %a 500
Total Points. Other
Stream Is at least intermittent County: I?Gy? e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 23 t Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2
3. In-channel structure, riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
6. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2
6. tae skional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9" Natural levees _ 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 _ 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 5
13. Second or greater order channel one existing
USES or NRCS map or other documented
evidence,
No 0
Yes j

t../
man-mace ancnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = °) 1
14. Groundwater flaw/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, .,?r
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 5 q
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0,5 1 1.5
10. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=; 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal I -Sr
1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
21b. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish do) 0.5 1 1.
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 .5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and Abundance) ?- 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton leb) 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. r
0) 0.5 1 1.6
29 . Wetland plants in streambed -
FAC :---0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =-1.5 SAV = 2.0; Othe 0
MII#a Lv 93„u L 1 1u&:ua ulI urn plr-sw ce ar upiana plants, item Ea TQCUSes on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ,*/.z 7/6 Project: Dvl?f%a rA? ?-- Latitude: 3'I r
Evaluator: Site. s.? -?rt„f Longitude: 71a
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent ? County:
if 2 19 or perennial if? 30 l S e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Wear Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
0. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9 a Natural levees no 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal T Z. < 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 1
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 015
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.6
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0,5 1,5
19. H dric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 0 Yes 1.8
C. Biology (Subtotal= A i
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
21 Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1
22, Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish _ 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0,5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28, Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us. 0.5 1 1,5
X29 a. Wetland plants in streambed FAC , ACW = 075; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2,0; Other= 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 fciases on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes; (use back side of this form for additional notes,) Sketch:
e
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # / (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ff " 417;lln".1 g 1N 2. Evaluator's name: 7., -L 11-K l rig
3. Date of evaluation: o q 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: Pa47'-2 S §1'4,1 rv1o,? S 6. River basin: CPne- ? c
7. Approximate drainage area: 4',' w1`6 -1 4 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: / 4S6 10. County: A" /e-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): S /7
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 77, -9-
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo She Ortho (Xnal) Pho /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note near oads and lannd attach map identifying stream(s) location):
?n-<, ?lJh ?, ?e 0/-/ yle. C.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): "r' i /ZI -1-1c fi 5

15. Recent weather conditions: 4 1
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 51-
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES OIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? <V NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? rYIFS) NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: f:A) % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankf ill width: X'74- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Z Z 4o-<
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ?Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ?Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 3-7 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 4i,,/ er
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only 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
r _ Olv PQ?N T' RAGEr
;ijAke
# CHA2ACTEt2ISTICS
a >CflE_
-
_ ? Co
st Ptedmopt ?;,?ountain.?

1 Presence of flow / persistent` pools in stream
0=5
0=4
0 5
f low or saturation . 0 strop flow - max points 5

2 Evidence ofpast human alteration
0 - 6
0 - S
0 = S
Q
extensive alteration - 0 no alteration =. mast points

L.
3- Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-3

2
. 0
no buffer contt uous wide buffer max rots
:U Evidence of nutrient `or chemical discharges

extensive disc ' es - 0 -
;es -max points) !'-

5.: Groundwater discharge
0
-3 -
0-4
0-.4 '
nodischar e::=.0 springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points .
t 6 Presence of adjacent-floodplain = 0-4 0- 4 0 2 /
no flood lam 0 extensive flood lath -max rots

7 Entrenchment ! tloodplam access .
dee 1 entrenched = 0• fre uent.floosiin = max points 0 - 5 0 -.4 0 - 2

=
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

Z-(no wetlands 0• jar a ad'acent wetlands ° max oints 0_6 0-4 0"2
-

9 Channel sinuosity
0
-
- .
extensive channelrzahon - 0 :natural inearider =.max points) -5 0.-4 3
0-
J?

10 = °Sedunentinput
-
0 - 3
0 = 4
0 4
extensive de sition= 0 little or no
sediment =, max oints)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
Y
11

fine honio enous = 0-1 -
are, diverse sizes = max. oints Np

_ 0 4 0-5
/f/?4
f Evidence of channel incision or widening
" Z
dee 1 incised :0 stable
bed & banks max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
? severe erosion ° 0• no erosion stabte banks= max points) 0 - 5 0 -:5 0 .5

14 -Root depth and density.on banks

(no visible roots = 0 dense roots throe hoot = max oints
0-3
0_4
0-5.
15
: Impact by agriculturet livestock, or timber production
-
0
3
0 - 4
0 -S

.
' substantial im act ?' no evidence - max points
- S
Presence of riffle poollripple-pool complexes

_ 16
no riffleshi -1es or pools - 0, well develo = max points 0 - 3 0 = 5 0 6
17
: Habitat complxity
.e 0_ 6 0- 6 0--
little or no habitat =:O- ' fie uent.. vaied habitats. = Max oints
18 Canopy. coverage over streambed .
'
`

no
shadin ve etation 0 continuous cane = max points : 0 _ 5 0
-
5
0 - 3
5
t
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA
*
0
4
0 4
dee 1 embedded - 0' loose structure = max B - ; IV A
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence - 0• 'common numerous "types = max points) - 0- 4 0"5 0 S
V' 21 Presence of a' hibians; -

C
.
no'evidence 0 common numerous *types max points) 0
4 0 - 4 0 - 4

2
fl". 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4
0- 4
o
id
ce 0
om
'n
o

2
' n
ev
en
c
mon
umer
us types= max points)
?u
Evidence of wildlife use
23 0=6 0-5 0 5
;

no evidence - Q
.abundarit evidence = max points) Jo
-•Y.s`a
, xt 1 1W
! ;
47
-WL SCORE also enter onirsae f
5

use characteristics are not assessea to coastal streams.
2
I USACE AID# DWQ # i Site # ?- (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ?-- f c, o /, %" 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 00/00 4. Time of evaluation: 4,7-1
5. Name of stream: [-/ % -* Or r 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: ,IJG t? 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): 7 rrf g rl
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Z u IV Longitude (ex.-77.556611):x;
Method location determined (circle): GPS To -S t Ortho (Aeries o/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location! of reach under evaluation (note neroads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
6 f- °70 1:317)17 ell' G//".s7?Aiit h n1Gy ?f??A/?7 7 /°) ?rI?JC+'/?!S?/oi'') ??,.-r z4"'.45 I-,,- z
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 7'.-?o/2
15. Recent weather conditions: it-r n -7 .
16. Site conditions at time of visit: > ?-r
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: VSection 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES CS } If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: lad % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ? Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 'Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown 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.
G
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature (l%'' 'mil/ Date 4-A'laf
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
- - - -' :. _
CHARACTERISTICS EC.dR:GIOT PY?I1? T RANG» 0
S`
C?

- Cos_ sta7 fP eont
?_ o
=1t1G ,lvit
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

-_,

no flow: or'saturahon =.0 strop k flow = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 4

7, 0 - 5.

2 Evidence of Past human.alteration
..
alteration = 0• no alteration _. max points
(extensive
0-6
0 - 5
0-
3 Riparian zone
r no buffer 0•,conti u wide buffo- max points 0 6 0- 4 0 S
4 "`. Evidence Onutrientor chemical di$charges
. extensive dischar es - 0 no dischar es ="m Akoints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 _4
5 . ` . Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0 springs, see s wetlands etc. = max points)
0 - 3
0 = 4
0 _ 4
3
6 Presence of adjacent floodplan 0
4 0-
4 0
2
no flood lam A• extensive flood Ian -max points - - -
' . Entrenchment / floodplain access
7
dee 1 entrenched.=0•fre uentfloodiu=max points). 0'= 5 0-4 0 2
" Presence of adjacent wetlands'
no wetlands 0;. lara ad acenf wetlands = max points 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max ints 0- 5 0= 4 0-
10 _ Sediment input
extensive deposition- 0 little or no sediment = max points) 0-5. 0-4 0 4_
11 Size & dwersity_of channel bed substrate *

ne homo enous =
.fi O, lar a diverse sizes = max points)
N?

'
0 .= 4
0 5 f?A
"
12 Evidence of.channel incision or widening

"

-

dee 1 incised 0 stable bed & :banks ..
max points) 0
= 5 0"4
0 5
/

13 -
Presence of major bank failures
.
severe erosion O;.no erosion stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5

14 Root depth and density on banks
0=3
0-4
0
5
no visible roots = 0, dense roots throughout ° max points) - 2
15 Impact by agr?cultnre, livestock, or timber. production
.: substanti
al in act no evidence =--max rots 0.-5 0- 4 0 3: 5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
&T-0= no riffles/ri les or pools , 0 well develo d = max points _ 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 6
Habitat comp lexit
-

little or no habitat fre went, varied habitats = max` points) 0-6
- 0.-6 0-6
O
18 Canopycoverage over streambed

(no shadin _ve etation 0 continuous cano = max points) 0-5 0-5 0 5`:
S
19 substrate embeddedness
N
'
1 embedded 0 ?loose structure = max A} 0 -.4 0 4
20 " Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence 0• common =numerous s = max points 0 - 4 0 - S 0 5 . O
UL 21 Presence of amphibians -

C
no evidence 0 common numerous types = max poi
nts
Presence of fish'' 0
4
0-4
074. O
22

no evidence. 0• common -numerous types =max points) 0-4 0-4 0 4- 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence r 0 abundant evidence = max points
0 .. b
0- 3
0 3 S
t 5 'ztx"

Total omts Pssi e
77 7 100 140
s ter fi 1
#AL SC1 (also enter on fiesta 4 i, 3
..awv WL-"vw11JL1W a1v 11VL a"ubbuV 1L GVQSL"dl StreamS.
2
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:Wilmington District
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: New Hanover City: Wilmington
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.171672° N, Long. 77.903092° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 232404, W 3,785,001
Name of nearest waterbody: Cape Fear River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Cape Fear River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 27 (03030007) NE Cape Fear
® 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 Determination. Date(s): 02/20/08 and 4/11/08
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be "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: private docks present.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "waters of the U.S." 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):
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (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: 1450 linear feet: 20 width (ft) and/or 0.66 acres.
Wetlands: 0.000 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): na.
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: NWI mapping and soils maps indicated that wetlands might be present but field work did not find wetlands.
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z 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 III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section I1I.13 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 waterbodya 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: acres
Drainage area: acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
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: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
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: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. 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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A 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:
? 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, X 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:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: 1450 linear feet 8 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: RPW.
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: 1630 linear feet 8 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: intermittent and perennial streams.
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.
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.
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.
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):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:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
"See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section I1I.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 Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
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:
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI layer superimposed on Google Earth mapping.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): See main report text.
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: Purpose of project is stream restoration on behalf of the City of Wilmington.
Obvious RPW onsite, but wetland field work did not meet the three 1987 criteria.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Doctors Branch City/County: New Hanover Sampling Date: 2/20/08
Applicant/Owner: City of Wilmington State: NC Sampling Point: W1
Investigator(s): Tim Schueler Section, Township, Range: Stonington Subdivision
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flood plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0.2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): T- Outer Coastal Plain Lat: 34.1723 N Long: 77.902008 W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston Series NWI classification: hydric, 2133,4
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ? No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ? ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
On flood plain adjacent to cross section pin 1 B (on right hand side looking downstream) this area is obvious flood plain
next to deeply incised stream with no obvious sign of wetland hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
- Surface Water (Al) - Water-Stained Leaves (69) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
- High Water Table (A2) - Aquatic Fauna (613) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) - Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (B2) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) - Crayfish Burrows (C8)
- Drift Deposits (133) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (134) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
- Iron Deposits (135) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
- Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) - Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ? Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ? Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ? Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ?
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W1
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot sizes: 20X20 ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum 20 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. Maanolia virainianna 60 yes FACW Total Number of Dominant
3, Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6
.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
Sapling Stratum ( ) OBL species x 1 =
1 FACW species 110 x 2 = 2.2
2 FAC species 90 x 3 = 2.7
3 FACU species x 4 =
4 UPL species x 5 =
5 Column Totals: 200 (A) 4.9 (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =

7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Shrub Stratum ( ) = Total Cover
? Dominance Test is >50%
1. Magnolia virginianna 40 yes FACW ? Prevalence Index is 553.0'
2. Liaustrum sinense 50 yes FAC _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
.
5.
6.
7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum ( ) Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
1 approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and
3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast
2 height (DBH).
.
3.
4. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
6, than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
7.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
8 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
9
10.
Herb -All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
11. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes
12. woody plants, except woody vines, less than
= Total Cover approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( )
1. Smilex rotundifolia 30 yes FACW Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: W1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 silty snd org. top soil (light to drk brn)
12+ 10YR 5/1 100 silty snd silty sand
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
- Histosol (Al) - Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
- Histic Epipedon (A2) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
- Stratified Layers (A5) - Depleted Matrix (F3) - Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
- Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
- 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
- Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
- 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
- Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present.
- Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) _ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
- Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) - Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
- Sandy Redox (S5) - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
- Stripped Matrix (S6) - Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Doctor's Branch City/County: New Hanover Sampling Date: 2/20/08
Applicant/Owner: City of Wilmington State: NC Sampling Point: W2
Tim Schueler Section, Township, Range: Stonington Subdivision
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flood plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%a): 0.2
LLR -T Lat: 34.1723 N Long: 77.902008 W Datum:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston Series NWI classification: hydric, 263,4
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ? No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ? No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No within a Wetland? Yes No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ?
Remarks:
On flood plain adjacent to cross section pin 1A (on left hand side looking downstream) this area is obvious flood plain
next to deeply incised stream with no obvious sign of wetland hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ Water-Stained Leaves (69) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) _ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
- Sediment Deposits (132) - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) - Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (135) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ? Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ? Depth (inches):
?
Saturation Present? Yes No ? Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W2
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot sizes: 20X20 ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum 20 yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. Maanolia virginianna 60 yes FACW Total Number of Dominant
3, Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species 100%
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
Sapling Stratum ( ) OBL species x 1 =
1 FACW species 110 x2= 2.2
2 FAC species 90 x 3 = 2.7
3 FACU species x 4 =
4 UPL species x 5 =
5 Column Totals: 200 (A) 4.9 (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =

7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
= Total Cover
? Dominance Test is >50%
Shrub Stratum ( )
1. Magnolia virginianna 40 yes FACW ? Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2. Ligustrum sinense 50 ves FAC _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4 be present.
5.
6.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum ( ) Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
1 approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and
3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast
2 height (DBH).
.
3.
4. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
6 than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
7.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
$ approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
.
9.
10. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
11. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes
12. woody plants, except woody vines, less than
= Total Cover approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine Stratum ( )
1. Smilex rotundifolia 30 yes FACW Woody vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: W2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-2 silty snd org. top soil (light to drk brn)
2-6 10YR 2/1 100 loam sandy loam
6-8 10YR 5/1 100 sand black roots present
8+ Gley 1 6/5GY 90 10YR 2/1 10 RM M loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
_ Histosol (Al) ? Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ? Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) - Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
- 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) - Redox Depressions (178) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
- 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) - Marl (F10) (LRR U) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) - Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
- Thick Dark Surface (A12) - Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
- Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present.
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) _ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Doctor's Branch City/County: New Hanover Sampling Date: 2009-03-11
Applicant/Owner: City of Wilmington State: NC Sampling Point: W3
Investigator(s): Tim Schueler Section, Township, Range: Stonington Subdivision
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flood plain tributary Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0.2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LLR-T Lat: 34.171211 N Long: 77.903106 W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston Series NWI classification: hydric 283,4
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ©, Soil ®, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes © No 13
Are Vegetation ©, Soil ®, or Hydrology © naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No 13 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ® within a Wetland? Yes ® No 13
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No
Remarks:
Side tributary to main stem of Doctor's Branch, tributary originates at culvert under Woodstock Drive.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Q Surface Water (Al) _ Water-Stained Leaves (139)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Saturation (A3) L-J Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
x Sediment Deposits (132)
B Drift Deposits (133) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
0 Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 11 No
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No
Saturation Present? Yes 13 No
Depth (inches):
ElDepth (inches):
0 Depth (inches):

etland Hydrology Present? Yes El No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monito ring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W3
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1
2.
3.
4.

5.
6 % Cover Species? Status

®
®

13 Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)

. Percent of Dominant Species 100%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

7
.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 20X20 )
1 Acer rubrum

0
®

= Total Cover

® FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
2 Ligustrum sinense 50 ® FAC FAC species 110 x 3 = 3.3
3
4
5
6.
®
13
11 ® FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 110 (A) 3.3 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
7.

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20x20 )
70
Total Cover
=
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

- Dominance Testis >50%
1 Ligustrum sinense
2 Quercus marilandica 40
30 ® FAC
® NI - Prevalence Index is :53.01
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4

5.
Q
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
7.

40
®
= Total Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.

2.
3
4.
5 (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).

Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
7. © Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8

9. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
10. © Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. - 11
2.
3.
4.

5.

Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes M No 13
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Dominance and prevalence indices su pport FAC; black jack oak dominant but not used for calculations as indicator
status is unknown. FAC NEUTRAL test is positive.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
,:Tol I
Sampling Point: W3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) % Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type, Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 2.5YR 2.5/1 100 top soil reddish black (organic)
6-20 2.5 YR 7/1 100 sand light reddish gray
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
H dric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
p
i Histosol (Al) E3Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ® 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
17 Histic Epipedon (A2) -_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) ? 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) _01-oamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _01-oamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1538)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) ?1
I?.IDepleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
LRR T
U
TF12
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) ,
)
) (
_oRedox Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Q Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Q Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ?Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
-
El Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) OReduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5) ]]Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
0
El
Depth (inches): No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes

Soil was not compared to a gley Munsell chart but could have been and would be an obvious gley, see photo.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Doctor's Branch City/County' New Hanover Sampling Date: 2009-03-11
Applicant/Owner: City of Wilmington State: NC Sampling Point: W4
Investigator(s): Tim Schueler Section, Township, Range: Stonington Subdivision
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flood plain tributary Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0.2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LLR-T Lat: 34.171211 N Long: 77.903106 W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston Series NWI classification: hydric 2B3,4
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes EJ No 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ®, Soil ®, or Hydrology ® significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No
Are Vegetation ©, Soil ®, or Hydrology 13 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ® Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No within a Wetland? Yes ® No El
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No
Side tributary to main stem of Doctor's Branch, tributary originates at culvert under Woodstock Drive. This test pit was
located just outside wetland area on left-hand side as one looks downstream and was used to determine limit of wetland
flagging.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) 11 Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al) _0 Water-Stained Leaves (139) 3 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Q High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) M Drainage Patterns (1310)
? Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U) In Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
a Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
® Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
®
0 D
h
th
i
No
Surface Water Present? Yes es):
ep
(
nc
Water Table Present? Yes No El Depth (inches):
?
Saturation Present? Yes No 0 Depth (inches): No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
includes capillary fringe
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

No wetland hydrology, significant change in grade (hillside).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W4
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3
3. Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.

5
0 Percent of Dominant Species o
100 /o
. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
7 ® Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 20X20 ) OBL species x 1 =
1. Acer rubrum 20 El FAC FACW species x 2 =
2 Ligustrum sinense 50 FAC FAC species 110 x 3 = 3.3
3. 13 FACU species x 4 =
4. 11 UPL species x 5 =
5. 13 Column Totals: 110 (A) 3.3 (B)
6
.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
7
70 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20X20 Total Cover
=
Dominance Testis >50%
1 Ligustrum sinense 40 ®x FAC _ Prevalence Index is 53.0'
2 Quercus marilandica 30 NI _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7. 13
-
40 Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
= Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1.

2
® Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3. than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. ®
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. ©

0 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
g. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately

0 3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
10. © Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 13
2.
3.
4. El
5 ? Hydrophytic
Vegetation
P
?
El
= Total Cover resent
Yes
No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Dominance and prevalence indices support FAC; black j ack oak dominant but not used for calculations as indicator
status is unknown. FAC NEUTRAL test is positive.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: W4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 2.5YR 2.5/1 100 top soil reddish black (organic)
12-20 2.5 YR 7/1 100 sand light reddish gray
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
H dric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al) ®Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) .® 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_
Histic Epipedon (A2) MThin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) f3 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) in Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) -OLoamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) epleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
R
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
edox
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) ZDepleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) MRedox Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) ]:3 Other (Explain in Remarks)
Q Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ?Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
-D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 13

Soil was not compared to a gley Munsell chart but could have been and would be an obvious gley (no photo taken). Hydric
layer beginning to run too deep to be wetland indicator.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Doctor's Branch City/County: New Hanover Sampling Date: 2009-03-11
Applicant/Owner: City of Wilmington State: NC Sampling Point: W5
Investigator(s): Tim Schueler Section, Township, Range: Stonington Subdivision
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flood plain tributary Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0.2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LLR-T Lat: 34.171283 N Long: 77.904253 W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston Series NWI classification: hydric 2B3,4
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ® (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ®, Soil or Hydrology ® significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No 13
Are Vegetation ®, Soil or Hydrology 13 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ® Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ® within a Wetland? Yes 19 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No 13
Remarks:
Test spot is within main stem in a backwater area on stream right as one looks downstream.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Q Surface Water (Al) Water-Stained Leaves (69)
12 High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (613)
Saturation (A3) tJ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
© Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
© Algal Mat or Crust (64)
0 Iron Deposits (65)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
L_4 Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No
Depth (inches): at surface
Water Table Present? Yes E]No
Saturation Present? Yes 13 No M Depth (inches): at surface
0 Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Obvious stream supported wetland hydrology.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W5

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20X20 )
1 Acer rubrum Absolute
% Cover
20 Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
In FAC Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2 Magnolia virginianna

3.
4.

5.
6 50 FACW

®

®
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
.

7.

Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
1
2
3
4
5
6.

0
)
®

= Total Cover

Q
®
0
?
13
®
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species 100 x 2- 2.0
FAC species 70 x 3 = 2.1
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 170 (A) 4.1 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.4
7.

20X20
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Magnolia virginianna
2 Ligustrum sinense

0
30

= Total Cover

® FACW
®x FAC
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
-
_ Prevalence Index is 553.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4

5.

®
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
7.

80
®
= Total Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.

2.
3
4.
5
6.
7,
8

9.
10.
11.
12.

Q

©

© (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).

Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb -All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.

Woody vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes El No 11
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Dominance and prevalence indices support FAC. FAC NEUTRAL test is positive.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: W5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe, Loc Texture Remarks
0-20 2.5 YR 7/1 100 sand light reddish gray
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
f dric Soil Indicators:
5 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
L
R O
f]
E3
Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (
R
)
Q Histic Epipedon (A2) MThin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) f3 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Q Black Histic (A3) _01-oamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) .® Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _01-oamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) tj Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) rl Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) f3 Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sand
Muck
Mineral (S1) (LRR O
S) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or
roblematic
y
y
,
Sand
Gle
ed Matri
S4)
-ORed
MLRA 150A
150B)
ced Vertic
F18) p
.
y
y
x (
Sandy Redox (S5) u
(
(
,
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
a Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No

Soil was not compared to a gley Munsell chart but could have been and would be an obvious gley (no photo taken).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Doctor's Branch City/County: New Hanover Sampling Date: 2009-03-11
Applicant/Owner: City of Wilmington State: NC Sampling Point: W6
Investigator(s): Tim Schueler Section, Township' Range: Stonington Subdivision
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flood plain tributary Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0.2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LLR-T Lat: 34.171283 N Long: 77.904253 W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston Series NWI classification: hydric 2B3,4
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ® (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ®, Soil ®, or Hydrology ® significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No 13
Are Vegetation ®, Soil ®, or Hydrology Cl naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ® Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes 13 No El
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 19
Test spot is within main stem up the stream bank on stream right as one looks downstream; used to determine wetland
limit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (136)
13 Surface Water (Al) Water-Stained Leaves (89) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (613) ® Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
B Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
a Drift Deposits (63) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
© Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7) x Geomorphic Position (D2)
00 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) ?
!3 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
th
i
h
D
Surface Water Present? Yes No (
nc
es):
ep
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes 11 No El Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Near top of slope; no wetland hydrology indicators present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W6
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
20X20
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum 20 [!] FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2 Magnolia virginianna 50 ® FACW

® Total Number of Dominant
4
3. (B)
Species Across All Strata:

4.

®
Percent of Dominant Species o
100 /o
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)

6
.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7 70 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) OBL species x 1 =
® FACW species 100 x 2 = 2.0
1.
2. ® FAC species 70 x 3 = 2.1
3. ? FACU species x 4 =
4. 11 UPL species x 5 =
5. ® Column Totals: 170 (A) 4.1 (B)
6.

7
®
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.4
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20X20 = Total Cover
Dominance Test is >50%
1 Magnolia virginianna 50 ® FACW - Prevalence Index is:53.01
2. Ligustrum sinense 30 ® FAC _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3. 13
4 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
6. 0 Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7 0
. 80 Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
= Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. 13 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6 13
. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
8 ® plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
.
9.
10. ? Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 13
2.
3.
4.
5 ® Hydrophytic
Vegetation
?
El
13
= Total Cover Present
Yes
No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Dominance and prevalence indices support FAC. FAC NEUTRAL test is positive.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: W6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc Texture Remarks
0-10 si lty sand top soil (light to dark brown)
10+ 10YR 5/1 100 silty sand
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
f H dric Soil Indicators:
5
O Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
LRR O
f3 1
M
k
A9
Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) cm
uc
(
) (
)
1 Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) f3 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) -OLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _01-oamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) J2 Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
R Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
M Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) ?Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
- wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) OReduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Q Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No 0

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
t
?t
26
r
k g?c?
?Raa

it VItl

U

C
L
W r
o
x
U

R
QW6 LA-

C
Y d
Y=W

L
m ?

o 41
Z
s

"+
.41
o
/J c

0
? U
d «V- L
z O
I , d, Z
? ^u

a f`filli�
Ir
j,4*�.
•'t . v
_ ti

v MCKIM&CREED
v
E N G I N E E R S
SURVEYORS
P L A N N E R S
July 28, 2009
Mr. David Mayes, PE
Stormwater Services Manager
City of Wilmington
Stormwater Services
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
M&C#: 00824-0079 (11)
RE: Doctors Branch Site Specific Mitigation Plan (Monitoring and Credit
Release) City of Wilmington Purchase Order S5-707
Dear Mr. Mayes:
Per our discussion with the US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) and the
North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NC DWQ), please let this letter
serve as an outline of how the Doctors Branch stream restoration project may be
used in the future as a site specific mitigation bank for future City drainage
projects which will permanently impact ACE/DWQ-regulated waters. The
Doctors Branch project represents 1,511 linear feet of main stem and 204 feet of
tributary restoration for a total of 1,715 feet of Priority I/11 complete stream
restoration (see Vicinity Map).
1.0 Credit Value
McKim & Creed prefers that the Doctors Branch project represents 1,715 linear
Venture IV Building feet of high quality restoration. Therefore the project should have a stream
restoration mitigation ratio of 1:1 and generate 1,715 feet of stream mitigation
Suite 500 units (SMUG s).
1730 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919.233.8091
Fax [phone]
www.mckirTicreed.com
2.0 Credit Release
Credit release should be as per Table 1 subject to the approval of ACE/DWQ.
Table 1: Credit Release
Project Milestone
Construction Started
Construction Completed; as-built
monitoring completed
After Pt Monitoring year
After 2nd monitoring year
After 3rd monitoring year
After 4th monitoring year
After 5th monitoring year
Total:
3.0 Monitoring Methods
Percent of Release Units Released
15% 257
25% 428
10% 172
10% 172
10% 172
15% 257
15% 257
100% 1,715
Monitoring of stream restoration projects is obligatory per ACE and DWQ permitting if the
project is to be considered a mitigation project and is required for five years. There are four
levels of required monitoring as spelled out by Section 10 of an ACE/DWQ 404/401 permit.
¦ Level III - photo monitoring only
¦ Level II - photo monitoring and plant survival tracking
¦ Level I - photos, plant survival and channel stability assessment (planform,
profile, pebble counts)
¦ Level I (+) - as per normal Level I plus biological survey is required
McKim & Creed assumes that Level I monitoring will be required (without biological .
monitoring).
3.1 Photography
Photographs will be taken in the downstream direction at all monumented cross
sections (XS's) for the purpose of qualitatively assessing (1) channel aggradation or
degradation; (2) bank erosion; (3) riparian vegetation success; (4) effectiveness of erosion
control measures and (5) presence or absence of developing instream bars. Please
see Map for the location of XS's.
A photograph will be taken at each cross section in the up and downstream
directions as well as from stream left to stream right and vice versa. Bank and
structure photos will be taken as deemed necessary in the field. Longitudinal profile
photos will be taken at regular intervals (usually every 25 feet looking downstream).
v! MC M&CREED
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetative assessment will take place at locations cataloged during the as-built process
and will determine if 80% of planted species have survived after one year with
adequate plant health. Each vegetation plot will consist of a 16-foot wide rectangular
area extending from the edge of the bank to the outer extent of the easement on each
side of the stream. Each plot will be permanently marked in the field along its
approximate centerline with four markers. Additionally, photo points will be taken at
the middle markers of each plot with each photo facing across the channel towards the
opposite bank. The purpose of the field observations will be to: 1) determine the success
of buffer re-vegetation and soil bioengineering methods utilized; 2) determine the
hardiness of plant species installed in relation to urban stream restoration; 3) note
distressed or dead plants; and 4) note areas with invasive species issues or other
management concerns. Additionally, photographs will be taken at areas where concerns
regarding vegetation (presence of invasives, easement encroachments, etc.) are
observed. Such areas, if any, will be identified.
3.3 Geofluvial Stability Monitoring
3.3.1 Planform and Channel Stability
Planform will be tracked annually through a combination of cross sectional
measurements, comparison of available aerial photography (as available) and
measured thalweg length and belt width to determine stream sinuosity. Channel
stability will be determined through tracking width to depth ratios (W/D's) and
entrenchment ratios (ER's) at cross sections.
3.3.2 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be
documented by the use of field-installed crest gages and photographs. The crest
gages will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the restored channels
(main stem and tributary). The crest gages will record the highest watermark
between site visits, and the gages will be checked each time there is a site visit to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits. Two bankfull flow events in separate
years must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period; additional
monitoring time will be required until two bankfull events in separate years can
be documented.
3.3.3 Cross Sections (Dimension)
Dimensional stability will be determined in part through cross sectional
measurements at the as-built and post construction stages. The cross-sectional
area, bankfull-width, flood prone width, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio,
46.
3 ,MM4&CREED
stream type (for riffle cross sections) as well as graphical representations
generated from the data. Riffle cross sections will be classified per the Rosgen
stream classification system. Three cross sections were established during the
evaluation/design portion of this project. At the time of construction completion,
these cross sections should be re-surveyed to be used as a basis for future trend
establishment. Some pins will be missing due to vandalism and/or construction
activities and will need to be re-established at the time of the as built survey. See
Cross Section Map for the locations of suggested monitoring cross sections.
After project completion, cross sections should either remain stable or trend to
the final target stream type (e.g., C4 section transitioning to an E4).
3.3.4 Longitudinal Profile
Pool/riffle spacing will be monitored through stream profile measurements and
spacing should remain fairly constant. Pools will be tracked to see if they fill
(aggrade) and riffles will be tracked to see if they erode (degrade). Specific values
to be tracked include water surface slope, bankfull slope, valley slope, average
riffle slope, average pool slope and pool-to-pool spacing. Pools should remain
deep with flat water surface slopes and the riffles should be steeper and
shallower than pools.
3.3.5 Bed Material Analysis
An evaluation of bed material will be made by conducting Wolman pebble
counts at each reference cross section. Particle size distributions will be compared
to future yearly samples. The Des, Dso, D84 and Dim distributions will be generated
along with percent cumulative graphs for each pebble reach; a general shift
toward larger material within the tributaries is expected.
3.4 Sediment Transport and Erosion
Erosion (and by default sediment transport) will be measured through Bank Erosion
Hazard Index (BEHI) scoring in comparison to values of Near Bank Stress (NBS);
methodology by Rosgen which was used in design to estimate the tons/foot/year of
erosion due to sparse, vertical banks for surveyed profile area only.
4 v MCMM&CREED
Table 2: Location, Type and Schedule for Monitoring
Type Location Monitoring Schedule Notes
Geomorphic
Cross Section See Map As-built and years 1, 3 and 5 3 Total
Survey post construction
Pebble Count At permanent cross As-built and years 1, 3 and 5
sections post construction
Longitudinal Along profile As-built and years 1, 3 and 5 700' Total
Profile post construction
Bankfull event At crest gages Annually until 2 bankfull
events in separate years have
been recorded
Erosion
BEHI/NBS Along surveyed profile As-built and years 1, 3 and 5
post construction
Vegetation
Vegetation See Map As-built, then annually for 4 3 vegetation
five years plots (two on
mainstem, one
on trib)
4.0 Monitoring Schedule:
4.1 As-built survey:
As-built channel survey will be performed for this restoration project. This will include
the restored channel's dimension, pattern, and profile. Permanent cross-sections will be
established at an approximate frequency of one per 20 bankfull-width lengths along the
channel length (two on main stem, one on the tributary). An as-built survey shall
include photo documentation of cross-sections and structures, longitudinal profile for
500 feet of the main stem and 200 feet of the tributary. The as-built shall include a, plan
view diagram, vegetation information, and pebble counts for the cross-sections; see
Table 2 for a summary of this information.
5.0 Success Criteria
5.1 Geofluvial Stability Success
Geofluvial survey shall document stability success through demonstration of the
following:
¦ Insignificant change in current dimension from as-built.
¦ Changes in channel stability minor and represent an increase in stability.
¦ Insignificant change in current longitudinal profile from as-built.
¦ Pool/riffle spacing is remaining fairly constant.
¦ Pools are not aggrading and riffles are not degrading.
5 ? MC M&CREED
¦ Pebble count is changing toward desired bed material composition.
¦ Documentation of one bankfull event.
5.2 Vegetative Success
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320,
three-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260, five-year old, planted
trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period. Initial vegetative success
will be gauged on survival of 80% of the installed vegetation after year one.
Table 3: Measures of Success
Main Sub Goal Method* Existing Goal Values
Goal Values
Erosion
TSS na BEHI analysis (I) 215- 2,740 2 - 27 to/yr
to/year
Vegetation
Riparian/wetland Plant counts (D) na 80% survival
vegetation after 2nd
growing
season;
minimum
stem counts
at years 3 and
5 of 320
stems/ac and
260 stems/ac
respectively
Geometry
Geofluvial stability Cross section and Determined Minimal
profile measurements at as-built changes
(D)
Geofluvial stability W/D and ER Determined Initial
measurements (D) at as-built increase in
W/D and
reduction of
ER followed
by reduction
of W/D
*I or D refers to the method being a direct (quantitative) or indirect (qualitative) measure
6.0 Monitoring Reports
A schedule for completing annual monitoring reports and report format will be determined in
conjunction with the City of Wilmington at a later date.
6 v? MCMM&CREED
7.0 Maintenance Issues
Maintenance issues will vary and generally depend on the following:
¦ Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible
to erosion from floods than those with a mature hardwood forest
¦ Projects with sandy non-cohesive soils are more fragile and subject to post
construction erosion than cohesive soils or gravely, cobble soils
¦ Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined
channels
¦ Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain
excavation difficult
¦ Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion
¦ Extreme hot, cold, wet or dry weather during and after construction can limit
vegetation growth, particularly temporary and permanent seeding
¦ The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to
which a native buffer can be established
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and commented
in the as-built and monitoring reports. The conditions listed above and any other factors that
may have necessitated maintenance will be discussed then. At a minimum, the as-built
monitoring report will detail criteria which will trigger vegetative supplemental planting,
invasives management, and/or revetment repair. The need for supplemental planting will be
evaluated at Year 2.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
McKim & Creed at 919-233-8091.
Sincerely,
McKim & Creed, PA
17
Timothy Schueler, PE
Stormwater Group Manager
Enclosures: Vicinity and Cross Section Maps
cc: DWQ / ACE (as part of 401/404 /plan submission job file)
v? MC M&CREED
Prc
t Fiji
1.0
Mainstem
pct Area
0

IUM
O
a
O Lr--
0L L L
L L
N a_ m N C: C:O O
O O D U U o 0
L
O Q E L L U U
N m o o
L
VN co(B
N Q O 2a
co
W (�
c� � ^O ^O ^O
VJ l..L Y.L 1..1..
'J O o o O to to
U U) > 0- a_ W W
®���_vfflm
1
lN�b W 8)
0
S UO "U 19
_z o
U
C: _N 010 N
0 V
07
Cl U
v o
U � �
LU
� m J
�o
,
W a-
0
O W
LL JO J�cJO �q
00
`
\\
2
C
w
W
z
0
1 �
Cf)
J
-
O
�o
I
LLL per_,
}
m
OW
Y
LL m
JO
O
O
LO
off`
\
W
�
Qa
+�
c
a
f
s
o
�
1
lN�b W 8)
0
S UO "U 19
_z o
U
C: _N 010 N
0 V
07
Cl U
v o
U � �
LU
� m J
�o
,
W a-
0
O W
LL JO J�cJO �q
00
`
\\
C
z
0
-
O
fp
V
}
m
Y
O
O
z
W
�
Qa
+�
c
a
o
o
�
v
v
£
m
o
c
c
v
m
=
w
m
r
Z
E
`
c
o
0
bo
0
\
O
O
u
£
N
N
.�
T
0
3
0
�
>•
3 -
F-
z
F
w
z
O
F
3r
a
a
a
f
u
a.
0
o
0

C
N
r N
a
0
r? 0
0
0
m N
6 O D
N
C) m O
Lri n
N
u? O
\' N
F? N
? m C
0
N
m
(O
C
n
a
N
O
O
c O_
0 a
m c
N co
c
O
? U
? O
Y
C y
c
L U
m Z
a N
U) r_ 0
O n
m EE)
U
c
m
O
` C)
a
O ?p
U N >, QmQ
O U Y W
0
Z
U U " C U
N (D c .? )
) y a
dd5? (n

V o
OH V
O 0
O 0
O co
O M
O V
N m .- CD
O v
O O
O C2 00
0 O
0 O
0 O
0 N
?O u)
O
)p
` O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

V

y

y
o
c0
O
V r

o
N
m
r
W
O

W

M
0
0
0 r
M
co
o
N r o
It

r

U?

M
co

N
E

A
Q c
d

e E

w

o

N

r

O

v

M

v

M

v

O

v

V

V

m

M

0

0

0

0

0

0

V

0

0

0

0

0

c,

N

L2

0

K1

0

co

N

0

0

0

0
y y R o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl
E y` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d O
y W
y
W
a m
y c
o
0?,..,
W
r
`-
m
r
N
r
N
V

0

0

0
co
c0

O

O
?...
o
co
N
O
N

O

O
a y o
M M r
r oD aO r m (p m co r ?..,
'6 fq
'O
Q
Y.
z'
EV

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

?

CD O
m
d
m

w

10
y
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
m
r

cc

V O

(O O
o0 r
r m
m
o? 00
In
M co
a0
c0 m
O w
M co
O m
V
p
Q / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT

C
d
E O O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d
10
W

m

o

N

T

V

L

r

-

v

m
< y 0 0 0 0 0 0 O " V m N w in V j
c v r- t10
o
M U
1
U')
N
N
W N M Cl) V r N co N CD
U
J
N
C
N
E
C
Q
Q
N
c
> c a C
m C a
c N 65
y
c m ° m c L
U a?
c E >
fO
°1 o m 3 Q Q r
a E
C
a C Q Y Y C U O
i C

-
W m co
O
co
d O _
C Q U Y - C T (0 a E C (0 .G -
L >,
O
O U O .O y C .C ` E L_ U L E N O d
a m
o 75
A ' Z r 0 0 t- 21 21 0 Y m 2i d Q Q F
#
O
J N M V GD m
? O
N
N N
N M
114
;D c0
'S r c0
CO ,-
r N
r M
r V
r N
m
m
a
a
N
O
0
n
c
O
N
N
N
c6
N
N
co
C
-o
cm
X
N
N
O
m
(7
y
N
co
Q
CO
tq
N
m
a
C
O
L
m
C
_O
_O
W
O)
N
7
a
m
co
E
N
N
N
N
co
N
co
c
d)
N
N
N
i
O
C M
a
a O
?a
L C
H N
N E
O N
Z m
Q
w
C
N
a
0
W
C O
O a
0 N
N U)
L L
(p tN
O
Y U
C
L (D
R N
N U)
U O N
L 5 R
U C O
C
co r y o
` p a:
O co
U N _° am E
a o U a Z5
0
Z
U U C U
N N C 01 N
O O ?
ddUo? (n?
{i

co O

N
N 1l

{ 0

t?
(0 % Oa

w N

N
M M

N
N M

O
0

) O

O ?

N

(0

O

m
N
W
tD
O

O
O
(0
M
a-
00

N
N
r
M
N
N
M
01
fA N
V> N
69 YY
(A N
V! W
V N
V y M

fH N

14
N
64
M
V>
tD
(A

?
.

C
O

^ E O

O

O O)

(D

O N M

? 7

p

N f?

p

`-

I, N

N O N
O m 0 0 0
CO
(O
CO
C
w

64
H C V)
6'3 E9 N
V)
V)
fA
N
V3
(4
V3
V) V) N
fA m M
fA 63 V) V) N
fA
y O

R
Q U
N
d
? R
C O N
w w
? O n
O = H c4 M

C
d 7 QI (q
N ? R
R
W E
O
w C
d O N
co
?

M r-
Lo
-
C)
CO CO
,?r
CO <-
_
N c0

1 N

0 m

0

0

p

00
m

O

O

nM

y
pp

co
M

N
"-

0
d M
C
G9
V)
63
W,
Vi
W3. Vi W 6s v EA 64
Vi
V)
C4
VCl)
) V>

U
J
J
N
C
O7
,C
(4
CL
Q
N
C
> C
CD a
w C
R
> C
O Y
f6 C
R -O
C N
7
L

3
N C
E
c L
U
d
O
0
0
N
Y
Y
(?
O
O ..
..
J U Y C LLI > m m m Q -a (n U ?

CL

m
C:

Q

c

C

o
E

>
o

C
co F

ui
-

m

L

o
U

m
L
cu
m

N ,

N T

Y
O U L') C '
m
m a =
`
v E N O N
d M z ? ? H ?
? U ? Y m n. ¢> Q> FL--

C
0 N M V M O O

N

N
N

N
M

N

N
N

CD
r

N
N

p

r N

r-

M
N

r

N
N
_O
a
m
U
(0
(6
O
rn
N
O_
a
m
m`
0
0
C)
C)
613
E
E
Q