20080978 Ver 2_401 Application_20100310

r1 MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
consulting engineers
Marziano &r
McGougan, P.A.
March 10, 2010
o? CV1 % v 1
Ian McMillan
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650 MAR 1 1 2010
RE: PCN Application for NW-39 Permit DENR - WATER QUALITY
401 Water Quality Certification WETLANDS AND STQRMATER BRANCH
New WTP Construction on the Yadkin River in Davidson County, NC
Davidson Water, Inc. WTP
M&M Project No. 29019
Mr. McMillan:
Davidson Water, Inc. (DWI) has previously permitted wetland impacts to construct a
new raw water intake on the Yadkin River (DWQ Project # 08-0978; USACE Action ID
#200801923). In addition to these impacts, additional wetlands have been located on the
water treatment plant site. These wetlands will be impacted during construction of a
new raw water reservoir and 10 mgd expansion to the existing 20 mgd WTP. The
following information is included in this package submittal:
1. Check for $540
2. PCN that includes all impacts previously permitted, plus new additional impacts
associated with the additional construction
3. SEPA FONSI dated October 6, 2009
4. Fisher River mitigation bank letter of acceptance
5. Map of the wetlands on site as determined by John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field
Office, during a site visit in February 2010
6. Wetland data sheets completed by Adam Carter of Wetland Solutions, Inc.
7. Biological Assessment of the WTP site, completed by Adam Carter of Wetland
Solutions, Inc.
On behalf of Davidson Water, Inc., please find enclosed five (5) copies of these materials.
We appreciate your review of the enclosed information and look forward to working
with you on the project. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions or need
any additional information.
Brian

1300 Second Avenue
Suite 211 cc: J n Thomas, USACE
Conway, SC 29526
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
o?oF W,arE9oc
??a - o oil v a-
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PC 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: NWP 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
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: Water Treatment Plant Upgrade to 30 mgd
2b. County: Davidson
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Lexington
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information G u '
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Davidson Water, Inc.
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 0727, pg. 794
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Gregg Stabler, General Manager DENR-WATER OMITY
WETLANDS AND STORNIWATENR BRANCH
3d. Street address: PO Box 969
3e. City, state, zip: Welcome, NC-3757A 1131 q
3f. Telephone no.: 336 731-5525
3g. Fax no.: 336 731-3195
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Adam Carter
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Wetland Solutions, LLC
5c. Street address: PO Box 244
5d. City, state, zip: Bunnlevel, NC 28323
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
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): 5796-01-08-4134
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.85271 Longitude: - 80.38319
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 24 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Yadkin River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV, CA; WS-V
2c. River basin: Yadkin; HUC 03040101
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 site consists of the existing DWI water treatment plant site and associated maintained grounds, mixed oak-pine
forest, and cultivated areas.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.414 acre Section 401
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
190 ft. intermittent; 205 ft. perennial
3d. Explain the-purpose of the proposed project:
The project will upgrade the existing water treatment facilities and increase treatment capacity from 20 MGD to 30 MGD.
A new raw water reservoir and intake structure/purr pstation will also be built to supply the WTP and store water on-site.
This expansion will allow DWI to provide water to customers within the local area during periods of peak demand.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will involve the construction of a new 10 MGD treatment facility, a new raw water reservoir, and a new raw
water intake, all within the current property boundaries. Equipment used will include Back or trac hoes, mechanized
clearing equipment, dump trucks, cement trucks, material handling equipment and smaller support equipment.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: JD pending.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary [K Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Wetland Solutions, LLC
Name (if known): S. Adam Carter Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
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.
Section 404 permit, USACE Action ID #200801923 issued June 19, 2008
Section 401 Water Quality Certification, DWQ#08-0978 issued December 7, 2009
Page 3 of 11
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 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. 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. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T

W1 ®P ? T Fill/Conversion to
Reservoir
Isolated ® Yes

? No El Corps

®DWQ
0.414
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? 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 0.414
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 Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Fill UT Yadkin River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 5 205
S2 ®P ? T Fill UT Yadkin River ? PER
® INT ® Corps
? DWQ 5 190
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P M T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 395
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
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 Yadkin River Fill River 0.067
02 ? PET Yadkin River Temporary dewatering River 0.23
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 0.297''
4g. Comments: "Previously permitted; see Section B5b.
6. 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 raw water reservoir 0 0.414 0 0 0 0 19.136
P2
5f. Total 0 0.414 0 0 0 0 19.136
5g. Comments: total dam height is less than 15 feet
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): 19.550
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): 19.550
5k. Method of construction: earthen compacted dam; clay impervious liner for raw water retention
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any 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 im act required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 0
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
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.
The project is contingent upon utilizing the area adjacent to the existing facility. The impacts are unavoidable due to design
constraints.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All standard BMPs will be utilized as in accordance with NC Division of Land Resources requirements.
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: Fisher River Mitigation
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type SMU Quantity 205
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): 0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: 0 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 11
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 8of11
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.
-
El Yes [
I No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 6.3%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: under 24% impervious threshold for
Davidson County stormwater; NPDES Phase 2 rules do not apply to Davidson County
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?
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? 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 ? HQW
? 0RW
(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
[Lb. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ® Yes ? No
Comments: SEPA FONSI was issued on October 6, 2009
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 ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
plant process (filter backwash) water is dicharged to the Yadkin River in accodance to NPDES Permit NC0084425.
domestic wastewater from plant operations building is disposed utilizing existing septic tank and drain field
Page 10 of 11
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?
Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS website, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Biological Assessment performed by Wetland Solutions, Inc.
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?
USFWS website, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Biological Assessment performed by Wetland Solutions, Inc.
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?
An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of Davidson County, NC, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (October
2004)
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: HEC-RAS model output
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC FIRM 3710578600K (Rev. 3-16-2009)
Gregg Stabler ZZ&U4, ?- O c - i 0
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Ap Icant/Agerics Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
ff'
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
Beverly Eaves Perdue Terr/ L. Pierce Dee Freeman
Governor Director
Secretary
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
?`'?? OC;r 20,39
Davidson Water, inc Water Plant Improvements Project
Davidson and Randolph County, North Carolina
The State Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A) requires that the Division of Environmental Health determine whether a proposed
major agency action will significantly affect the environment. The Davidson Rater, Inc Water Improvements Project is such a major
action.
In order to determine whether the construction of a new 30 million gallons per day (MGD) water treatment facility with conventional
filtration, new raw water intake on the Yadkin River, converting the existing sedimentation basins to slud,e storage and dewaterina
basins, and decommissioning of the existing 20 MGD facility will cause significant environmental impacts, an environmental
assessment has been prepared. The environmental assessment is attached. It contains detailed information on the key issues, including
a brief description of the proposed project and a summary of probable environmental impacts with proposed mitigations. None of the
impacts were found to be significant. This project shall be reviewed as a NEPA-Like!SEPA project.
On the basis of the analysis of the impacts as shown in the environmental assessment, no environmental impact statement (EIS) will
be prepared. This FONSI completes the environmental review record. The FONSI and Environmental Assessment shall be available
for inspection and comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse.
Summary of FONSI for publication in the Environmental Bulletin: After completion of an environmental assessment under G.S.
1 13A, a FONSI has been made in the case of the Davidson Water, Inc Water Improvements Project. Information supporting the need
for the proposed project was reviewed, along with relative impacts, other alternative approaches and mitigating measures.
try . ie a (Date)
Director, Environmental Health
PaDnc V;ster Supply Section - Jessica G. hMes Chief
liN Mail Service Center, Raie4h, NoAh Carolira 27549.1x34
P.Wna 919-733-2321 1 FAX: [phone] \ Lab Form FAX: 9',9.71_-5c37 i Intemet. ncdrnk ngv?aler ?tate.nc.us
Ac o u,i: p;n.rery A4f"Z9'e Acton ETP::Q'3:
One
NolthCarol i na
Alatwhilly
a,
7?-
N
WE
J

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: W p Latitude:"
_Atli
I -
Evaluator: Site: Ke, r^ fly #' ( Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent County' Other h ?, ?} !6
if? 19 or erennial if? 30 Da C hJ e.g. Quad Name:) c{ r I`
y 1'
.10
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 (2) 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 65
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvriminav (Suhtntal = 1 t l 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b_ Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 011 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ; 6 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 21 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1.5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; er = 0
items zu ana zt Tocus on rite presence of upiana plants, item zu tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: pave0(5et?j k)7-'P Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: J-11,' Longitude
rc C!; ?y
Total Points: Other "(C!
Stream is at least intermittent County: 00 V 1615 G ti1
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1U, ] Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 9 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3

15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = r), )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 `
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0. 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 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/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; BL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items zu ana z-i focus on the presence or upiana plants, item zit focuses on the presence of aqunuor wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
54o cM w a?e-r '(?t ec?
AMERICAN
Naniral Resource
Exchange
Corporation
February 23, 2010
Mr. Chris Leach
Wetland Solutions, LLC
P.O. Box 244
Bunnlevel, NC 28323
Dear Mr. Leach:
American Wetlands has 205 SMU's of mitigation credits available in our Fisher River
Mitigation Bank, located in HUC 03040101 in Surry County, NC. It is my understanding
that you propose to use these SMU's to mitigate for proposed impacts of your client,
Davidson Water, Inc. When the Regulatory Agencies approve of the use of these credits
for your mitigation, please let me know and I'll invoice you for their costs.
The form you sent me appears to need the signature of the Applicant or Agent. If this is the
case, you may wish to attach a copy of this letter to the form. Please let me know if this
letter meets your needs, and if not, please give me a call and I'll provide whatever
additional needs you have.
I appreciate working with you on this project and please let me know if you need anything
else.
Sincerely,
vci ? -
I LAMAR BEASLE
President
2 3 i o Ballycairne Court Reston,Virginia a 0 19 1
telephone [phone] fax 703.86o.ooQz
Wetland Credit Request Form
Submitted to:
Mr. Lamar Beasley American Wetlands 2310 B,allycairne Court Reston, VA 20191
[phone]
2/23/2010
Contact Information A !cant Applicant's Agent
L Name Davidson Water, Inc. Wetland Solutions, LLC
2. Address or PO Box PO Box 969 PO Box 244
3. City, State, Zip Code Welcome, NC 37374 Bunnlevel, NC 28323
4. Contact Person Mr. Adam Carter
5. Telephone Number [phone]
6. Fax Number
7. Email Address wedandsolufionsnc ahoo.com
Project In formation
8. Project Name Davidson Water, Inc. Upgrade to 30 d
9. Project Location (nearest town) Lexington, NC
10. Lat & Lon Coordinates 35.85124°N 80.38456°W
11. Project County Davidson
12. River Basin & Cataloging Unit ("t "t) Yadkin; 03040101
13. Project Type Commercial
14. Riparian Wetland Impact (acre) 0
15. Non- an Wetland Impact (acre) 0
16. Coastal Marsh Impact (acre) 0
Warm Cool Cold
17. Stream Impact (feet) 0 205 0
18. Buffer Impact ( . feet Zone 1: Zone 2:
USACE DWQ:
19. Regulatory Agency Staff Contacts Mr. John Thomas
20. Other Regulatory ID Information
Signature of Applicant OEG nt
Date:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project is located at the site of the existing Davidson Water,
Inc. waste water treatment plant, on the southern side of US Highway 64, between Koontz Road (SR 1186) and the Yadkin River. The
project includes the expansion of the facility from 20 mgd to 30 mgd. Review area includes the Section 404 wetlands labeled A-C line, B-
Line, and the P-K Line on the attaced maps.
State: NC County/parish/borough: Davidson County City: Tyro Township
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.85124° N, Long. 80.38456° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Yadkin River 12-(98.5)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Yadkin River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Yadkin; 03040101
® 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):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. (Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): `
TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersz (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
Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 295 linear feet: width (ft) and/or 0.197 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
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:
' 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).
s 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.1. 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 III.B below.
L 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 IH.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: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
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.
3 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 arealyear: 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):
F1 Discontinuous OHWM.7 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 IILD:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream Identification score of 40 indicates perennial stream..
® 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: Stream Identification score of 17 indicates ephemeral/intermittent stream.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 295 linear feet 20 width ($).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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 III.B 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.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
SSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA 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 solel 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: 1:24,000; Churehland, NC quad.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) for Davidson County.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, 19990518,
onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.nwi_poly: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, St.Petersburg, Florida..
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NC One Map; 2004.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: 0""" ')/N w?sl ?jAj-^ -4rf1,44'?J City/County: DAvJS©F' COW14 4 Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: 4'1$ v s J ? gra +V State: Al, C, Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): MY m car 4N" Section, Township, Range: L ?? l n G 4 1k !? I Q?
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): li A Of Local relief ((concave, convex, n cone): KA-dLn NTSlope (%): 2 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:? Long: h Q?? Ll 5- tj Datum: AlAh
Soil Map Unit Name: r. A- • d 4k 1 ( IS, !'. -RA n. CkrJ f . <5 n rk m- -NWrclassification: P 1 I/ lrc°?l
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _1Z No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V 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 V No Is the Sampled Area
H dric Soil Present? Yes ?/ Flo
y ? within a Wetland? Yes No _
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology;lndicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Prima Indicators minimum of one is required: check all that a I _ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
High Water Table (A2) - Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patterns (610)
?Saturation (A3) - Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) _ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_
_ Water Marks (B1) - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ?rayfish. Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _ 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 (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 1- AC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
d
Surface Water Present? Yes t,No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): MIA
Saturation Present? Yes v'"a No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes y 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: 0 5- 3®x 3 a{ Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover Species?
Status

1. 1 } [? l A /? t, t ?1 G C + C? ?1? ;"
`° 0 y -
? Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. ? w S f G _S4, r ?
('is cf, rat
f f J
o
10 N rt.*wF

A kJ

Total Number of Dominant
?L
rA kl t /1u J Do r X15 q isw n P a
3. F (B)
Species Across All Strata: r
R
4. !a A t ?fcl
i
S

5. MARj C??'C&tiu. pec
Percent of Dominant
es [
or FAC: ? 6 (AB)
That Are OBL
FACW
ur ,
,
? h
I
k
t
l
d
P
7. Dr t G ,,rA,,1 I q P ?r?? .e we !u ?.r. u n
ex wor
s
ee
:
reva
ence

3o + 3 0 Cf
X 6'1 '1o = Total Cover Total % Cover of Multiply by:
=
OBL species x 1
Sa li Stratum (Plot size:
)
t ?Z AEI
? 5?
1 td-
FACW sPecies x2=
C, Opnr. ( 0_Q_
2. rrG•X A /0 4. FAC species x3=
I
3. 2 ?t n t "4tr Y FAC' U FACU species x4=
4. ???r ?s id,f 0 Ott. UPL species X5=
5. AGtr reh/r(A ?? r 7 c, ?vt?- Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
.
3 a/o =Total Cover
H
yd/rophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ?
y Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2 _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
.
5.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7.
c
oZS I/o = T
l C
t Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
d 3 i
h
?/
3?? ov
o
a er t an
n.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in heig
k)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: O (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1. ?f1
P,1`Mr?RtftruM A0
__
__tt
2 t?Dlt t G? rt7 . f? S
`
s?
i Lwd
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
1
3. /Sire (_k311 M Soo, ° I
y -A - than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
fo
4
wood
vines
Shrub - Wood
lants
excludin
y
,
y p
,
g
5, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. i
l
di
H
b
All h
b
d
l
t
nc
u
ng
er
-
er
aceous (non-woo
y) p
an
s,
7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
$ 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.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 36)X 3o E( ) =Total Cover

1. E0 ir) I CPc:?,_ 6,00
2. cases SPt?• z °/? I?
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Ve
etation
l qo4 = Total Cover g
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: L G- W
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) % Tvae Loc Texture Remarks
`7.5 y2 5-11
r s C-L
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, 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 (171) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
- Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) i -°7:?edmont 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) i 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) _ Mari (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) unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
_ 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
l Cit County: qu I J+ Q^ Clan Sampling Date: I I - I D
Applicant/Owner. A a i o'l OVA- State: N , II Sampling Point: U J v1 Jo
Investigator(s): J'C?" A M'! C ,kr J--c- Section, Township, Range: L -?l //? 7 ?1 ??
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): C O V c aC/ S;i/ Ve (%): 3 Vo
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L h 1° Lat: 3 S. 11 r t l am' Long: ?U. 3 ??S Cs J ttt?nr ?l Y3
p `??`G (t -b41iVF-classification:
Soil Map Unit Name: 44L-AV 4)
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes L/No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ Z 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:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apaly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (A1) - Water-Stained Leaves (139) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
- High Water Table (A2) - Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ 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 (63) - 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 (65) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) L,4AC-Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations: /
Surface Water Present? Yes No V epth (inches): OVA'
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): AJA-
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): t(JJ4 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: I 2LO

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 13 0X13® t-! -)

1. Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.

3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. o
5. Percent of Dominant Species
or FAC: (A/B)
That Are OBL
FACW
6. ,
,
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
r
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 13 y ?)
1. = Total Cover Total % Cover of. Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
2. FAC species x3=
3. FACU species x4=
4. UPL species X5=
5. Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.

7 Prevalence Index = B/A =
.

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ):301K 13 ?
)
1.

=
Total Cover
Hophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
_ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)

4. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5
. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
7. J'

Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)

S
1 So V 0, *611)1,
= Total Cover

lO.Sof

o Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.

(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2 rd r, , t + • t (t SG, fl [ i 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. Sh
b
l
W
d
t
l
di
d
i

5. ru
y p
y v
nes,
-
oo
an
s, exc
u
ng woo
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
$ plants, except woody vines, less than approximately

.
9. 3 ft (1 m) in height.
10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
12.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3d fC b o
J
?6 0 0/4 =Total Cover
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
V
t
ti

= Total Cover ege
a
on
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If (observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Aar 4 ? ?1?W?!_ 6 C
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point:_ S,,0
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
7,51
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, 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 Muds (All 0) (LRR S)
_ Blade Histic (A3) - Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) - Reduced Vertic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) - 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 (176) (MLRA 1536)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muds Presence (A8) (LRR U) _ Redox Depressions (F8): - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) _ Mari (F10) (LRR U) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Iron-Manganese Masses (1712) (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.
_ 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 149X 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No -Z
Remarks:,
?If'E 1+ `a':t t
Jt? °:?
3f
d
e.?
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED UPGRADE
TO THE DAVIDSON WATER, INCORPORATED WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
DAVIDSON COUNTY, NC
Prepared by:
Mr. Chris Leach and Adam Carter
Wetland Solutions, LLC
PO Box 244
Bunnlevel, NC 23823
For:
Marziano & McGougan. P.A.
Consulting Engineers
Asheboro, NC
Introduction
Davidson Water, Incorporated has proposed upgrades and an expansion to its water
treatment facility located in Davidson County, NC. This assessment was prepared to address
potential project-related impacts to species listed as Endangered by the state of North Carolina and
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), pursuant to Sections 7 and 9 of the
Endangered Species Act.
As of October 2009, the only federally-listed endangered species recorded in Davidson
County is Schweinitz's sunflower (Heliantbus scbehmit#i). Additionally, two state-listed endangered
species have also been recorded, the heart-leaf plantain (Plantago cordata) and the robust redhorse
Xoxostoma robustum). Both plant species are listed as "historic" in the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) GIS database but listed as "Current" in the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program online records. A complete listing of state and federally-listed species is shown in
Table 1.
Project Overview
Davidson Water, Inc. (DWI), a water utility in central North Carolina, is a private non-profit
incorporation that is supplied with treated water from the C.O. Pickle Water Plant. The C.O. Pickle
Water Plant (hereafter called the DWI WTP) was originally constructed in 1969 at the US-64
crossing over the Yadkin River. The DWI WTP is located approximately eight (8) miles west of
Lexington on US-64, approximately 1,000' south of the bridge crossing the Yadkin River. The water
treatment facilities, raw water intakes, and raw water reservoirs are located on the eastern bank of
the river; access to the DWI WTP site is located off Koontz Road (SR 1186).
Project Area
The project is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont physiographic region in Davidson
County (Griffith, et al, 2002). The project is located within the Yadkin river basin with the Yadkin
River forming the western boundary of the project area. Major hydrologic features in the area
include the Yadkin River, Dyker's Creek, and Gobble Creek. The two creeks, fourth order and third
order respectively, drain an area of approximately 8,700 acres into the Yadkin River. Upland soils
within the project area include Cecil and Pacolet sandy loams, Wickham fine sandy loam, and
Congaree loam. Hydric soils include Altavista fine sandy loam and Chewacla loam.
The only natural community identified within the project area was a 16-acre section of
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). This
community is characterized by a relatively thick overstory of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white oak
(Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm (Ulmus americana) and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia). The thin understory is dominated by turkey oak (Q. laevis) as well as younger specimens
of the overstory species. The sparse herbaceous layer is dominated by greenbriers (Smilax spp.) with
Christmas fern (Polysticbum acrosticboides) sparsely distributed in some areas.
Wetlands located within the project area include a Low Elevation Seep, a jurisdictional ditch
and an isolated wetland area shown in Figure 2 as Section 401 wetlands. The overstory in the
vicinity of the seep is comprised of Black gum (Nyssa aylvatica) and red maple. The understory is
composed of red maple, American elm and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). This
wetland also supports a shrub layer which is dominated by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The
herbaceous layer is dominated by greenbriers (Smilax spp.) but also includes Royal fern (Osmunda
regalis) and Christmas fern.
The isolated wetland area features an overstory dominated by American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black gum, and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). These dominant species are
interspersed with river birch (Betula nigra), red maple, and American elm. The relatively thick
understory is comprised of black willow (Salix nigra) and Chinese privet, interspersed with red maple
and Atlantic white cedar. The herbaceous layer includes Indian woodoats (Chasmanthium latifolium),
cardinal flower (L.obelia cardinalis), and grapefern (Botrychium sp.).
Project Description
The proposed upgrades and expansion as described in Section 5.3 of the Preliminary
Environmental Review (PER) as Alternative #3 include: "Upgrade Existing 20 mgd WIT; New 10
mgd WTP Capacity." The components of this project are to upgrade the existing 20 mgd WTP
while constructing a new 10 mgd water treatment facility adjoining the current site. Alternative #3
is the most economical project to serve the needs of the region and will allow DWI to properly
manage the available water resources, build additional capacity to satisfy growing system demand,
and address the critical health needs outlined in Section 4 of the PER The following items are
proposed in Alternative #3:
The project includes the modification of the existing 20 mgd sedimentation structures to
accept lamella plate settlers. The installation of lamella plates will improve the settling capacities and
provide a higher quality effluent from the sedimentation basin. New sludge removal equipment will
be installed in the sedimentation basins and modifications to the existing filter system include new
valves and piping arrangements.
The two facilities will use a common flash mix where all the chemicals will be added. The
treatment technology will not vary enough that the primary chemical addition of coagulant will differ
from one treatment plant to the other. The hydraulic gradelines for the treatment plants will be
similar in elevation.
The new 10 mgd facility will include a Lamella plate sedimentation basin or a Super Pulsator
clarifier, conventional dual media, gravity filters, and a granular activated carbon (GAC) contactor
for the removal of organics prior to disinfection. The existing 20 mgd treatment facility, as well as
the proposed 10 mgd expansion, will share a granular activated carbon (GAC) contactor that will be
utilized as the flow exits the treatment facility. Approximately 4 acres of mid-successional
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest will be cleared and 0.026 acres of Section 404
jurisdictional wetlands will permanently impacted to accommodate the construction of the new
facility
2
rn.
or° ertY,l$ounda ga7ez NF
p
.J t!rt?; ?
GeageI as.l,ngfrnNF
o i
Yadkin River
rl
Lynchburg
Miles oke
0 1.25 2.5 5 Lexi ZZ
gton
220
NF,
P:sgai NF
LRar?anre NF

r Srrr,ter NF
N .?
MNLegend
25 12.5 0 25 50 75 100 Mils ( Property Boundary
Cha op
Figure 1: Location of the Davidson Water, Inc. upgrade project within Davidson County, NC
3
The proposed raw water intake will be all new construction. The existing intakes will remain as a
back-up system until the DWI operations and management staff is comfortable with the operation
of the proposed raw water intake after construction. At a later date, these intakes may be removed at
the discretion of DWI as long as they remain structurally intact and operationally effective as a
backup system. All applicable permits for this future work will be coordinated with the appropriate
review agencies.
The lower raw water reservoir will be expanded to a capacity of approximately 90 million gallons.
This will allow DWI to expand its raw water capacity to approximately 150 million gallons and
maintain the minimum 5-day storage for surface water treatment plants. The expanded reservoir will
be located at the downstream end of the project site. It is estimated that approximately 10 acres of
cleared pasture lands will be converted to accommodate the expanded raw water reservoir.
Figure 2: Aerial photograph of the project area with survey areas shown.
4
Listed Species
Species addressed in this document were chosen due to known occurrences in Davidson
County. This was determined by reviewing USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database
System (I'ESS) records and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data and
publications.
There is one federally-listed endangered vascular plant and an additional state-listed
endangered vascular plant species with ranges located within Davidson County. Of the listed
species, the Robust redhorse's (Moxostoma robustum) status is listed as "historical" by the NC Natural
Heritage Program and not considered in this assessment.
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalis) has recently been de-listed by the USFWS. While it is
no longer considered endangered it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagles are known to nest near rivers, but there were no
individual eagles or nests observed during surveys conducted as part of this assessment. Based on
the information provided in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS, 2007), no
bald eagles will be disturbed or adversely affected within the action area of this project. However, if
changes are made that include activities outside the current proposed project area, surveys should be
conducted within the new area to ensure no impacts to the bald eagle or other listed species would
result.
Table 1: Protected animal and plant species listed for Davidson County, NC (NCNHP, 2007)
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State Federal County - Status
status Status
Animal Assemblage Colonial Wading Bird None
Colony
Invertebrate Animal Cambarus catagius Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish
Invertebrate Animal I ampsilir radiata Eastern Lampmussel
Invertebrate Animal Stmphitus undulatus Creeper
Nonvascular Plant Orthotrichum strangulatum Drummond Moss
Nonvaseular Plant Scopelophila cataractae Agoyan Cataract Moss
Nonvascular Plant Weiuia sharpii A Moss

Vascular Plant Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil
Vascular Plant Amorpha schwennd Piedmont Indigo-bush
Vascular Plant Baptisia alba Thick-pod White Wild Indigo
Vascular Plant Cardamim dissecta Dissected Toothwort
Vascular Plant Dodecatheon meadia var.
meadia Eastern Shooting-Star
Vascular Plant Gilknia stipulata Indian Physic
Vascular Plant
V
l
Pl HeRanthus laemptus
H
hi
h
h
i
i
ii Smooth Sunflower
S
h
i
i
'
ascu
ant
ar
Vascular Plant
V
l
Pl e
ant
us sc
av
n
lt
Hexalearisspicata
M c
we
n
tz
s Sunflower
Crested Coralroot
ascu
ar
ant
Vascular Plant ateka dttipiens
Plantago cordata Glade Milkvine
Heart-leaf Plantain
Vascular Plant Pseudognapha&m helleri Heller's Rabbit-Tobacco
Vascular Plant Ruelliapurshiana Pursh's Wild-petunia
Vascular Plant Symphyotrichum i
G
A
eorg
a
ster
geoTanum
None None Davidson - Current
SC None Davidson - Current
T None Davidson - Current
T None Davidson - Obscure
SR-P None Davidson - Historical
SR-D None Davidson - Current
SR-O None Davidson - Current
SR-T FSC Davidson - Current
SR-T None Davidson - Current
SR-P None Davidson - Current
SR-P None Davidson - Current
SR-P None Davidson - Historical
SR-P None Davidson - Current
SR-P None Davidson - Current
E E Davidson - Current
SR-P None Davidson - Historical
SR-P None Davidson - Historical
E None Davidson - Current
SR-P None Davidson - Current
SR-O None Davidson - Current
T C Davidson - Current
Vertebrate Animal Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback SR None Davidson - Current
Vertebrate Animal Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake SC None Davidson - Current
Vertebrate Animal Etheostoma collir op. 1
p Carolina Darter - Central Piedmont
Population SC FSC Davidson - Current
Vertebrate Animal Haliaeetus leuxcephalus Bald Eagle T None Davidson - Current
Vertebrate Animal Lanius ludoticianus Loggerhead Shrike SC None Davidson - Current
Vertebrate Animal Moxostoma mbustum Robust Redhorse E FSC Davidson - Historical
Vertebrate Animal Myotis kibii Eastern Small-footed Myotis SC FSC Davidson - Current
Status codes
State status Federal Status
CODE STATUS CODE STATUS
E Endangered E Endangered
T Threatened T Threatened
Sc Special Concern C Candidate.
C Candidate FSC Federal "Species of
Concern"
SR Significantly Rare PE Proposed Endangered
EX Extirpated PD Proposed De-listed
P_ Proposed (only used
as a qualifier of the
ranks above)
Species Descriptions and Determination of Effect
Species addressed in this document were chosen due to known occurrence in Davidson County.
This was determined by reviewing USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database System
(TESS) records and reviewing NCNHP records
Schweinitiz's sunflower: Schweinitiz's sunflower is a perennial rhizomatous herb with purple
stems, yellow composite flowers and pubescent lanceolate leaves. The stems can vary in number
from one to many and are normally pubescent but are more likely than the leaves to be glabrous.
The lanceolate leaves are pubescent overall with a scabrous upper surface and denser fine white
hairs below. The spinose hairs of the upper surface are directed towards the leaf tip. Leaves on the
lower stems are oppositely arranged and generally larger than those on the upper stems, which are
often arranged alternately (USFWS, 1994).
Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from August-October as late as first frost. The composite
flowers have fertile disc flowers that range from yellow to purplish in color, and yellow ray flowers.
The entire flower averages approximately 5cm across.
Schweinitz's sunflower is shade intolerant and is believed to have once inhabited Piedmont
prairies, forest edges and Post Oak - Blackjack savannas (USFW, 1991). The species currently
occurs in clearings, upland forest edge habitat, power line and roadside rights of way, especially
those areas maintained by a regular fire regime or other disturbances. Those piedmont woodland
communities favored by Scweinitz's include xeric hardpan forest, dry hickory-oak forest, or
6
Piedmont longleaf pine forest (as defined by Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
(httg: / /www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Helianthus+sch-,veinitzii)
Soils that support Schweinitz's sunflower include clays, clay-loams and sandy clay loams with
high gravel content. These soils can vary in moisture content from moist to dry. While clay soils
were noted during the surveys, no suitable habitat was noted and no Helianthus spp. were found.
Biological determination: No effect
Heartleaf Plantain: Heardeaf plantain (Plantago cordata) is a semi-aquatic perennial with broad
ovate to chordate fleshy leaves and one to several scapes that are hollow when mature. The leaf size
can be variable depending on the season, with the larger, chordate leaves occurring in the summer
and the narrow, often lanceolate leaves occurring in winter. Leaves in the fall are of intermediate
size. The heardeaf plantain in North Carolina occurs in gravelly or rocky stream beds and associated
gravel bars (Kartesz,1994). The heardeaf plantain has very specific habitat requirements, both in
substrate composition and hydrology, and is very sensitive to water quality and sedimentation.
Heardeaf plantain begins flowering in mid-April from with fruit maturation occurring within one to
three weeks of anthesis. The flowers are perfect and bear feather-like stigmas and abundant pollen
typical of plants adapted for wind pollination.
The project area had only marginally suitable habitat for the heart-leaf plantain based on
hydrology, but no soils considered to be suitable were noted within the project area.
Biological determination: No effect
Methods
Prior to any delineations or surveys, USGS Topographic maps, Davidson County Soil maps
(MRCS, 2009), aerial photographs, NCNHP data and publications, and USFWS records were
reviewed to identify those areas that might contain habitat for listed species. Species to be included
in potential surveys were identified as described above. The first phase of the field work included a
survey on foot of the project area to identify potential habitat for listed species. Because of time
constraints and the flowering season of, surveys were simultaneously conducted to determine the
presence of Schweinitz's sunflower. Much of the proposed project work will be completed within
areas currently used for agriculture. These areas were not surveyed but the boundaries of these areas
and all edge habitats were surveyed. Areas within the existing water treatment facilities were also
excluded from the surveys.
Field work also included delineations of jurisdictional wetlands within the project area.
Wetland delineations were conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the COE Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region. Wetland delineations were conducted
between January 19, 2009 and January 29, 2009. A jurisdictional determination site review by the
USACOE, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office is pending.
7
Conclusions
The project area includes a high percentage of disturbed area, including agricultural fields,
mowed areas, sedimentation basins, raw water basin, roads and existing water treatment facilities.
The areas in the vicinity of the wetlands and the edges of the wooded area provided the only
potential habitat for listed species. Based on the surveys, it was determined that the canopy of the
wooded area was too thick and the forest edges were too thick with pioneer species and these site
conditions were not conducive to the occurrence of the heartleaf plantain or Schweinitz's sunflower.
Other sections of the project area not disturbed as described above have been cleared and
maintained and were not considered suitable for either of the endangered plant species.
No protected species (federal or State) were detected during the biological survey for the
proposed upgrade to the Davidson Water Treatment Plant. Therefore, this project, as designed will
have no effect on the Schweinitz's sunflower or the heartleaf plantain.
References
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., and
MacPherson, T.F., 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, OR, (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and
Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
NC DENR, 2007 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database available:
http://149.168.1.196/nhp/find.12hl2 accessed 11 October 2009.
NC DENR, 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrences: NC DENR, Div. of Parks and
Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina: third approximation. NCDEHNR, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
325 pp.
USACOE, 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Davidson County, North Carolina
URL:<http://SoilDataMart.nres.usda.gov/>• Accessed October, 2009
USFWS,1990, Endangered and Threatened Species Accounts. [Web page] U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/servlet/TESSS12eciesQuery.
Accessed: Oct 2009
USFWS,1992. Schweinitz's Sunflower species description. [Web page] U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/schwsun html
Accessed October 2009.
USFWS, 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA 28 pp.
USFWS, 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Endangered Species. Available:
http: / /www. fws.gov/midwest/ Eagle/guidelines /NationalBaIdEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf
Accessed October 2009.
9
Appendix A
Photographs of the project area for the proposed upgrade and expansion to the Davidson
Water, Inc. water treatment facility.
Appendix A-1: Section 404 wetland looking north toward the existing facilities. Note the sparse
herbaceous layer. The second photo is taken near the head of the wetland seep.
Al
i.
? t
i pa

Appendix A2: Photographs of typical maintained areas within the project area.
A2
-CA-31

Appendix A3: Photographs looking south and southeast (respectively) across jurisdictional
ditch. The first photo shows the isolated wetland area in the background.
A4
Appendix 4: Photographs from the project site looking toward the Yadkin River.
A4