20100996 Ver 1_401 Application_20101210

MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hennessy 2 0 Q
FROM: Peter DeVries
SUBJECT: Dusenbury Application r
DATE: 11/19/10
Mr. Hennessy,
Enclosed please find five copies of a PCN, $01/401 application for the Susan Dusenbury
project in Walnut Cove, NC.
A check in the amount of $270 for the application fee as a minor project is attached to the
cover page of the original copy of the text.
One copy of this application was hand delivered to Amy Euliss at the WSRO.
One copy was also sent to John Thomas at the Raleigh office of the US ACE.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Peter H. DeVries
Geoscience & Technology, P.A.
336.896.1300
[e-mail] a ?fl
1 2010
DENR- MtR QUALITY
?r L S MD STOUVATER BRMllXi
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1poscltnce &
"Practical Engbrerzng &
Environmental Sohdions"
2050 Northpoint Drive • Suite A
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
www.geotec.com
20 , 0099 6
WETLAND & STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
Prepared for
Susan Dusenbury
1374 Brook Cove Road
Walnut Cove
Stokes County, NC
November 2010
Prepared by
Geoscience & Technology, P.A
2050 Northpoint Drive
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Project No. 10.397

11

1
1

0

1
F
F

1
1
Clans &
o4 Po Ao
November 19, 2010
John Hennessy
Wetlands & Stormwater Branch
NPS Assistance and Compliance Oversight Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Ms. Amy Euliss
WSRO NC DENR
Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 7107
Mr. John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27586
Mr. Hennessy, Ms. Euliss and Mr. Thomas:
2050 Northpoint Drive • Suite A
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
www.geotec.com
Reference: NOV-2010-OP0039; Susan Dusenbury Project, Brook Cove Road, Walnut Cove, NC. .
Geoscience & Technology, P.A. (GeoSci), on behalf of Ms. Susan Dusenbury, is pleased to submit
this response to NC DENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Surface Water Protection Section
(SWP) Notice of Violation (NOV) -2010-OP0039 dated September 7, 2010. The NOV is related to
land disturbing activities located on Ms. Dusenbury's property with apparent impacts to
jurisdictional waters and wetlands. The site is located at 1374 Brook Cove Road, Walnut Cove,
Stokes County, NC. The property is listed as PIN# 6952-08-88-1430 in the Stokes County tax
records and contains 65.18 acres. The site will hereafter be referred to as the subject site, study site
or subject property. The area of disturbance includes 19.8 acres in an area parallel and adjacent to
Ash Camp Creek. Please note that the site has also been cited by the NC DENR Division of Land
Resources (DLR), Land Quality Section (LQ) for violation of the Sediment Pollution Control Act
for not submitting an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E&SC).
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC 1
404/401, PCN November 2010

1
1

1

u

iJ
A preliminary response to the NOV was submitted to your office on October 1, 2010 and contained
a chronology of events to that point. This response contains a summary of events since that time
and specific responses to the cited impacts.
• October 4, 2010: Peter DeVries, Project Geologist with GeoSci, completed delineation of
impacted wetlands identified during the meeting on September 28`h
• October 6, 2010: GeoSci acting as agents for Ms. Dusenbury contracted Level Cross
Surveying, Inc. to perform a topographic and feature survey of the subject site. The survey
was necessary to accurately portray all relevant erosion and sediment control features,
wetland and stream impacts, and determine drainage areas in order to complete an Erosion
& Sediment Control plan for land Quality.
• October 11, 2010: GeoSci submitted a workplan to Ms. Euliss related to removal of
sediment from approximately 600 LF of an unnamed tributary to Ash Camp Creek.
• October 12, 2010: GeoSci acting as agents for Ms. Dusenbury contracted Buena Vista
Landscaping & Irrigation (Mr. Herb Dunn) to perform sediment removal from the
unnamed tributary when the aforementioned workplan was approved.
• October 14, 2010: Mr. DeVries met at the site with John Thomas of the US Army Corps of
Engineers (US ACE) and Sue Homewood of the DWQ to review the wetland delineation.
Mr. Thomas approved the delineation with two minor revisions of wetland boundaries.
• October 15, 2010: GeoSci received approval of the tributary sediment removal workplan in
the mail from Ms. Euliss and directed Mr. Dunn to proceed with the project.
• October 19, 2010: Mr. Dunn completed removal of sediment from the tributary. Ms. Euliss
inspected the tributary with Mr. Dunn and Mr. DeVries and indicated that the sediment had
been removed according to the plan as of that day.
• October 20, 2010: GeoSci received a preliminary digital copy of the survey performed by
Level Cross Surveying. This copy did not include the wetland boundary markers.
• October 21, 2010: GeoSci received a completed digital copy of the survey performed by
Level Cross Surveying, including wetland boundary markers.
• October 22, 2010: Mr. DeVries measured the wetland boundary offsets that Mr. Thomas
indicated in the field on October 14`h and made the revisions to the site survey.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND IMPACTS WTIHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION
Please see the attached letter, signed by Ms. Dusenbury, in Appendix A for project purpose and
impacts without prior authorization.
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATONS
According to conversations with Mr. Thomas of the US ACE and Ms. Euliss of the DWQ, an
NOV was issued in 1994 for dredging a 400 LF channel and draining wetland on this property.
Mr. Thomas apparently made a wetland determination at that time. According to Ms. Dusenbury, a
contractor attempting to resolve a drainage issue related to a clogged pipe under the gravel drive,
excavated the channel without her knowledge. The impacts were restored and the violations resolved
in 1994. According to Ms. Dusenbury, this incident was not related to the current project that is the
subject of this application.
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC 2
404/401, PCN November 2010

1

PREVENTION OF FUTURE VIOLATIONS
Ms. Dusenbury indicated that to prevent these problems from reoccurring on this project, "I have
engaged Geoscience & Technology, P.A. to develop and oversee an approved environmental plan in
accordance with current local, state and federal statues." To prevent these problems from
reoccurring on future projects Ms. Dusenbury indicated that, "I have no plans for future projects
that require any dirt moving."
LAND QUALITY SECTION AND EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
On September 23, 2010, GeoSci submitted a preliminary Erosion & Sediment Control (E&SC)
plan to Matt Gantt of the Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO) of the NC DENR Land
Quality Section (LQ) pursuant to a Notice of Violation (Project ID Stokes-2011-003) dated
September 9, 2010. Following a site meeting with Matt Osborne from LQ on September 28, 2010,
GeoSci began preparation of a comprehensive E&SC plan based on Mr. Osborne's reconnaissance
and recommendations based on his review of the preliminary plan. On October 6, 2010 GeoSci
engaged Level Cross Surveying to perform a topographic and site feature survey in order to
accurately calculate drainage areas and to specify erosion control structures and stormwater
conveyances. The completed survey was received on October 21, 2010. The completed E&SC plan
was submitted to Mr. Osborne on October 29, 2010. A number of comments from the LQ reviewer
resulted in significant revisions to the plan, which were submitted on November 10, 2010. As of the
date of this document, GeoSci expects imminent approval of the E&SC plan.
' Numerous additions to the existing erosion control measures have been made since GeoSci's
involvement on September 15, 2010. The disturbed area has been seeded with fescue and is well
established as of the date of this document. GeoSci and Ms. Dusenbury have been conducting site
' and erosion inspections and preparing erosion inspection forms as required by NC General
Stormwater Permit NCG01000. Copies of those forms are included in Appendix B of this
submission. Please note that as of the date of this submission, a NCG01000 permit has not been
issued for this project, as the E&SC plan has not been approved. However, the E&SC plan is under
' review and revisions were made to include the restoration plans and how they affect the E&SC plan.
Final approval is pending as of the date of this application.
1 IMPACTS AND RESTORATION
' Drawing C 1 contains a site map of the entire site and disturbed area along with a vicinity map. All
jurisdictional features are indicated on the attached drawings C2, C3 and C4. The impacts are
labeled to correspond with the impacts noted in the NOV. Proposed restoration is indicated on
drawings C2R, C3R and C4R.
UT1 (Pipe)
UT 1 is located at the north end of the subject site and is a 205 LF impact to an intermittent
' unnamed tributary to Ash Camp Creek (see Drawing C2). The impact includes 160 LF of 24-inch
CMP and 45 LF of excavation and fill at either end of the pipe. Restoration of this impact will be
accomplished by removal of the existing pipe and excavation of a channel that is similar in
' morphology to the upstream channel located in the woods to the northeast. The channel in the
woods averages 2 feet in width bank-to-bank and approximately 5-inches in depth. The sinuosity
ratio of the existing channel is 1.22. The straight-line distance of pipe and associated impact is 168
' Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC 3
404/401, PCN November 2010

1
LF and 205 LF of channel will be restored within that distance (see C2R). Restoration of this
channel will be in conjunction with the restoration of wetland impact #1 (WL1) as the gradient from
' the tree line southwestward toward the wetland will be reestablished during restoration of the
wetland impact. The gradient of the channel will approximate the gradient from the elevation at the
invert of the remnant of the existing channel at the tree line to the elevation of the wetland to the
southwest. The channel banks will be stabilized with jute mesh matting and seeded with fescue,
which was the dominant vegetation prior to installation of the pipe.
The E&SC plans call for retention of the existing pipe as a clean water diversion until the restored
channel is in place and approved by DWQ. The pipe will be removed and the ditch along the tree
line will be filled following restoration of the channel. Erosion and sediment control is specified in
the E&SC plan for the area disturbed by the removal of the pipe and filling of the ditch. The E&SC
' plan also calls for a riprap apron at the outlet of the existing pipe that will be in the adjacent wetland.
This is a temporary impact and will be removed following restoration and stabilization.
UT2 (Pipe)
' UT2 is located approximately 1450 LF southeast of UT 1 and is a 240 LF impact to a perennial
unnamed tributary to Ash Camp Creek (see drawing C3). The impact includes 150 LF of 36-inch
' CMP and 90 LF of excavation and fill at either end of the pipe. Ms. Euliss measured 240 LF of
channel on her first visit to the site in August 2010. The straight-line distance from the end of the
existing 36-inch CMP, which is under the gravel drive, to the distal end is 205 LF; therefore, the
sinuosity ratio of the previously existing channel is 1.17. The sinuosity ratio of the existing
undisturbed channel northeast of the gravel is 1. 12, based on measurements by GeoSci personnel.
The previously existing gradient in the now disturbed appears to be lower than in the woods to the
northeast and higher sinuosity ratio is expected in the lower gradient area.
' Reduction of this impact will be accomplished by removal of 50 LF of existing pipe and excavation
of a channel that is similar in sinuosity to the previously existing channel as measured by Ms.
Euliss. The channel in the woods averages 4 feet in width bank-to-bank and approximately 8-inches
' in depth. A fifteen-foot wide `floodplain' will be excavated in which the restored sinuous channel
will be excavated. The slope from the new floodplain to the top of existing fill will be 2:1 and will
be stabilized with jute mesh matting and seeded with fescue, The remaining 100 LF of pipe will be
' located as shown on C3R with a downstream impact of 20 LF of riprap at the outlet. This leaves a
total impact of 120 LF times the sinuosity of 1. 17, which equals 140 LF. The total restored channel
length northeast and southwest of the remaining pipe will be approximately 100 LF to achieve the
' desired sinuosity. Specifically, 46 LF of channel will be restored in 39 LF southwest of the outlet of
the 36-inch pipe and 54 LF of channel will be restored in the 46 LF northeast of the inlet to the
remaining 36-inch pipe. The channel banks will be stabilized with jute mesh matting and seeded
with fescue, which was the dominant vegetation prior to installation of the pipe. A Section 401
' Water Quality Certification with a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN; after-the-fact) for this
impact is contained in Appendix C. Avoidance, justification and minimization issues are addressed
below. Drawing C3R shows the proposed remaining channel, required excavation and erosion
' control specifications.
UT3 (Relocation)
' UT3 is located approximately 120 LF southeast of UT2 and is a 100 LF relocation impact to an
unnamed tributary of Ash Camp Creek (see drawing C3). UT3 makes a circuitous route through a
number of relic `clay pits' that are in the floodplain of Ash Camp Creek. A 100 LF portion of UT3
' immediately adjacent to the disturbed area was straightened along the base of the filled area to the
northeast. This portion of tributary was also impacted by sediment form the disturbed area and will
be addressed separately below. The relocated channel averages 3 feet in width bank-to-bank and
' Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC 4
404/401, PCN November 2010

' approximately 8-inches in depth. This is very similar to the undisturbed channel upstream and
downstream of the relocated portion. The sinuosity ratio of the undisturbed channel is 1.33.
' Proposed restoration of this impact is to recreate the sinuosity of the pre-disturbance channel in
accordance with the sinuosity of the undisturbed adjacent channels. Ms. Dusenbury proposes to
provide 117 LF of restored sinuous channel within the 100 LF that was relocated (see C3R). Depth,
width and gradient of the restored channel will be in accordance with existing conditions upstream
' and downstream. Bank stabilization is crucial at this location especially on the `filled' side to the
northeast. Jute mesh matting will be staked to the banks for stabilization and existing silt fence will
remain in place until vegetation has been established.
' UT3 (Sediment)
Sedimentation in UT3 occurred as a result of inadequate sedimentation and erosion control during
land clearing and grading activities. The sediment impact began at the outlet of a 36-inch CMP
installed in UT2, where it joins UT3. The sediment impacted approximately 600 LF of the tributary
downstream and Mr. DeVries measured sediment depths on September 29, 2010. A workplan for
sediment removal was submitted to Ms. Euliss on October 11, 2010 and was approved on October
13, 2010. Ms. Dusenbury contracted Precision Silt Fencing (dba Buena Vista Landscaping and
Irrigation, a.k.a. BVLI) to manually remove the sediment.
' On October 16-19, 2010 Mr. Herb Dunn of BVLI and his crew removed the sediment with shovels,
buckets and wheelbarrows. Per Ms. Euliss' instructions, sediment greater than 1-2 inches in depth
was removed from the channel (thalweg) and sediment up to 3-inches in depth was left in benches.
' All the sediment removed from the stream was placed a minimum of 30 feet from the bank and
distributed in a manner to avoid reintroduction into the watercourse.
' On October 19, 2010, Ms. Euliss inspected the tributary along with Mr. Dunn and Mr. DeVries.
Ms. Euliss indicated that the sediment had been removed according to the plan and, unless there
was additional sediment discharged to the tributary, the sediment impact documented in the original
NOV was mitigated. No new sediment from the land disturbance has impacted the tributary as of
' the date of this application.
WL1 (Dredge, Fill and Sediment)
' WL1 is located at the north end of the subject site and is a dredge and fill impact to 0.53 acres of
riverine wetland. This wetland is directly connected to Ash Camp Creek and its extent is probably
due to beaver activity; however, beavers do not appear to be currently active in the area. Fill was
' placed in and along the wetland boundary as indicated on drawing C2. The same area has also been
affected by sediment resulting from inadequate sedimentation and erosion control during land
clearing activities. The wetland boundary was delineated by Mr. DeVries on October 4, 2010 and
' verified by Mr. Thomas of the US ACE on October 14, 2010. Wetland data points are indicated on
C2 and the boundary was flagged in the field and surveyed. Copies of the wetland data forms for
the delineation are included in Appendix D.
' Ms. Dusenbury proposes to restore this impact is by removing the fill and sediment using a
trackhoe or similar equipment working from the upland area and restoring the topography to as
close to pre-disturbance conditions as possible. Sediment and fill will be removed by backhoe as
' close to the original wetland boundary as possible. The ground surface from the excavated wetland
boundary towards the upland will be graded back at a 3:1 slope and then to the elevation of the
existing surface at the tree line to the northeast (see detail on C2R). A small portion of the impact
' was essentially dredging; that is, the wetland surficial soil was scraped to form a temporary
diversion berm. This berm will be smoothed back with a toothed trackhoe bucket into the wetland
surface. Sediment and fill removed during this restoration will be placed in a drainage ditch along
' Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC 5
404/401, PCN November 2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
the tree line northeast of the wetland. The drainage ditch was created during installation of the pipe
impact UT I. The drainage ditch is not within the wetland and is not an impact to jurisdictional
waters or buffers. The dominant wetland vegetation species in the undisturbed adjacent wetland are
Fuerina squarrosa (hairy umbrella sedge) and Polygonum amphibium (water smartweed or
knotweed). Due to the time of year, the restored wetland area will be seeded with rye grass to
stabilize the area. The natural vegetation in the adjoining undisturbed wetland is expected to invade
the area during the next growing season. Furthermore, the wetland soil that will be exposed during
restoration probably contains significant quantities of seeds from the pre-existing wetland
vegetation. These seeds will also germinate in the next growing season. Therefore, reseeding with a
wetland mixture is not deemed to be necessary. The upland slope adjacent to the wetland will be
matted with jute mesh and reseeded with fescue to stabilize the disturbed soils. Silt fencing will be
placed just upslope from the wetland boundary following the restoration to prevent sediment from
entering the wetland. WL1 restoration and temporary erosion control specifications are indicated on
drawing C2R.
The wetland restoration at this location will be performed in conjunction with the UT1 restoration.
The E&SC plan specifies a riprap apron at the outlet of the existing pipe that will be in the wetland.
This is a temporary impact and will be removed following restoration and stabilization associated
with restoration of UT 1. The apron is 941 ft2 or, which is within the original impacted area. The
apron is listed on the attached PCN as a 0.022 acres temporary impact.
WL2 (Fill)
WL2 is located approximately 300 LF southeast of UT1 and is a fill impact to 0.029 acres of an
isolated wetland contained in a relic clay pit. The wetland is not connected by channel or natural
drainage to Ash Camp Creek or any tributaries. Fill was placed in and along the wetland boundary
as indicated on drawing C2. The wetland boundary at this location was delineated by Mr. DeVries
on October 1, 2010 and verified by Mr. Thomas of the US ACE on October 14, 2010. Wetland
data points are indicated on C2 and the boundary was flagged in the field and surveyed. Copies of
the wetland data forms for the delineation are included in Appendix D.
Ms. Dusenbury proposes to restore this impact by removing the fill within the wetland boundary
using a trackhoe or similar equipment standing on the upland side of the fill. Sediment will be
removed by backhoe as close to the original wetland boundary as possible. The ground surface
from the excavated wetland boundary towards the upland will be graded to a 2:1 slope to the
elevation of the existing surface in the recently disturbed area. Fill removed during this restoration
will be spread evenly on the recently graded surface no closer than 30 LF to the northeast. The
dominant wetland vegetation species in the undisturbed adjacent wetland are Fuerina squarrosa
(hairy umbrella sedge) and Polygonum amphibium (water smartweed or knotweed). Due to the time
of year, the restored wetland area will be seeded with rye grass to stabilize the area. The natural
vegetation in the adjoining undisturbed wetland is expected to invade the area during the next
growing season. Furthermore, the wetland soil that will be exposed during restoration probably
contains significant quantities of seeds from the pre-existing wetland vegetation. These seeds will
likely also germinate in the next growing season. Therefore, reseeding with a wetland mixture is not
deemed to be necessary. The upland slope adjacent to the wetland will be matted with jute mesh and
reseeded with fescue to stabilize the disturbed soils. Existing silt fence at this location will remain in
place until restoration is completed and will then be placed just upslope from the wetland boundary
following the restoration to prevent sediment from entering the wetland prior to stabilization of the
newly disturbed areas. WL2 restoration and temporary erosion control specifications are indicated
on drawing C2R.
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC
404/401, PCN
6
November 2010

1 WL3 (Fill, Clearing and Sediment)
WL3 is located at the south end of the disturbed area and is a fill, clearing and sediment impact to
' 0.347 acres of bottomland hardwood wetland (see drawing C4). This wetland is adjacent to two
existing ponds that are located in relic clay pits. The wetland is not directly connected by channel or
natural drainage feature to Ash Camp Creek or any tributaries. However, based on the proximity of
' the wetland to the two ponds, which are ultimately connected to Ash Camp Creek, the wetland is
probably hydraulically connected via shallow aquifer groundwater to the ponds. Fill and wetland
surface soil was formed into a berm running along the tree line extending through the wetland as a
' temporary sediment and drainage barrier during the land disturbance. A small amount of sediment
originating from the disturbed area to the northwest also impacted this wetland. The wetland area
from the existing tree line to the ponds was cleared of existing vegetation, which consisted primarily
of pines intermixed with bottomland hardwood species, such as Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet
' gum), Quercus phellos (willow oak), Betula nigra (river birch), Platanus occidentalis (American
sycamore) and Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip poplar). This area was not graded or filled, except for
the temporary berm along the existing tree line. The wetland boundary at this location was
' delineated by Mr. DeVries on October 1, 2010 and verified by Mr. Thomas of the US ACE on
October 14, 2010. Wetland data points are indicated on C4 and the boundary was flagged in the
field and surveyed. Copies of the wetland data forms for the delineation are included in Appendix
' D. Please note that the wetland boundary flagged and surveyed includes a portion of the wetland
within the existing undisturbed forested area that was not impacted by this project.

1

Ms. Dusenbury proposes to restore this impact is by removing any sediment and temporary berms.
Sediment will be removed by backhoe and redistributed to an area within the recently disturbed area
that is outside of the wetland buffers. The original topography of this area is intact with the
exception of the temporary berm; therefore, further restoration of topography is not necessary at
this location. A 40 FT X 65 FT temporary sedimentation basin will be constructed outside of the
wetland area and its buffer to the northwest that is a part of the Erosion & Sediment Control
(E&SC) plan (see LAND QUALITY SECTION above). The existing temporary diversion berm
will be smoothed back into the wetland with a toothed trackhoe bucket and the wetland area restored
when the adjacent areas have been stabilized.
Once the area has been stabilized and the temporary sediment basin within the wetland removed, a
mix of bottomland hardwood trees similar to the adjacent woodland will be planted including, sweet
gum, river birch, and willow oak. The proposed restoration plantings will consist of 1-year saplings,
or as otherwise available. The proposed plantings make up the future overstory community.
Understory and herbaceous species are expected to naturally invade the community as the overstory
matures. Additional canopy species such as tulip poplars, red maples and sycamores that have
windborne seeds are also anticipated to invade naturally. WL3 restoration and temporary erosion
control specifications are indicated on drawing C4R.
IMPACT AND RESTORATION SUMMARY
Table 1 is a summary of the impacts noted in the NOV and impacts remaining after proposed
restoration.
Table 1: Stream and Wetland Impact and Action summary
Impact ID Impact Type Impact Area Action Impact
(Acres) or Linear Remaining
Feet (LF)
UT I Stream, pipe 205 LF Remove pipe; restore 0 LF
205 LF of channel
and stabilize banks.
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC
404/401, PCN
7
November 2010

1

Impact ID Impact Type Impact Area Action Impact
(Acres) or Linear Remaining
Feet (LF)
UT2 Stream, pipe 150 LF of pipe; 240 Remove 50 LF of 140 LF
LF total pipe; restore 100 LF
of channel and
stabilize banks.
UT3 Stream, relocation 100 LF Restore sinuosity of 0 LF
channel and stabilize
banks.
UT3 Stream, sediment 600 LF Sediment removed; 0 LF
erosion controls in
lace.
WLl Fill, dredge, 0.53 Acres Remove fill and 0Acres
sediment sediment; restore
grade and vegetation.
WL2 Fill 0.029 Acres Remove fill and 0 Acres
restore grade and
vegetation.
WL3 Fill, clearing and 0.35 Acres Remove fill and 0 Acres
sediment restore grade and
vegetation.
RESTORATION SCHEDULE AND POST RESTORATION MONITORING
' Following approval of these plans, removal of impacts can begin almost immediately, weather
permitting. In keeping with the E&SC plan, the pipe at UT 1 and its outlet apron will remain in place
as a clean water diversion until channel restoration is completed and stabilized. Erosion and
' sediment controls at UT2, WL2 and WL3 will also remain in place until areas disturbed by
restoration are stabilized. Based on the time of year, it may be prudent to seed the disturbed areas
outside of the wetland with a winter crop, such as winter rye to permit enough growth to provide
stabilization. These areas can be reseeded with fescue in the spring. Wetland seeding will take place
' as soon as possible; however, given the time of year germination may be minimal. Tree planting in
the wetland area at the south end of the site can take place as soon as all equipment-type work is
completed at that location.
' All restored impact areas will be monitored weekly in the first six months following restoration for
erosion issues, seed germination and bank stabilization. Monitoring frequency will decrease to
' monthly for the next six months and then annually for at least four years after that. Erosion control
inspections will continue pursuant to the general stormwater permit until disturbed areas are
stabilized. The temporary sediment basins will be removed when an engineer and/or the Land
Quality Section has determined that the areas are stabilized.
' ENDANGERED SPECIES
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) was observed in the fringe of wetland area #1
' (WLl) at the north end of the project area and in the lower reaches of UT3. Neither of the observed
communities were impacted by this project nor will they be during restoration activities. Other
vascular plants, such as Juglans cinera, Chelone cuthbertii, Cardamine micranthera, or
' Monotropsis odaorata were not observed within the project limits. The US Fish & Wildlife Service
(US FWS) website was reviewed and none of the other endangered species listed for Stokes
County were observed within the project site; however, a comprehensive investigation for vertebrates
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC g
404/401, PCN November 2010
1
(Noturus gilberti or Thoburnia hamiltoni), and invertabrates (Speyeria diana, Lasmigona
subviridis, Pleurobema collina or Macromia margarita) was not conducted.
' HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
' A request for an environmental review was forwarded to the Environmental Review Section of the
State Historical Preservation Office, Department of Cultural Resources. This review is pending and
the results will be forwarded as soon as possible. A review of the National Register of Historic
Sites for North Carolina did not indicate any historic sites on or near the subject property. A review
' of the State Archaeological Resources website did not indicate any site of archaeological interest on
the subject site.
' AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND JUSTIFICATION
Since this is an after-the-fact application there was no impact avoidance prior to commencement of
the land clearing and grading. This restoration plan proposes to remove all but one of the impacts,
' which is minimization. Furthermore, the original pipe impact in UT2 was approximately 200 LF.
Early in the process following receipt of the NOV, GeoSci recommended that the pipe be cut to the
existing 150 LF to remain below the threshold for mitigation. The proposed remaining impact is 140
' LF, which is further minimization. The justification for the remaining impact is explained in the
letter from Ms. Dusenbury (Appendix A).
Please note that the established airfield east of the subject property that is referred to in Ms.
' Dusenbury's letter is Meadow Brook Field. The location and `restricted' designation for this
airfield is documented on the 2010 North Carolina Aeronautical Chart published by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. Copies of the relevant portions of this map can be
' furnished on request. According to Ms. Dusenbury's letter, she cannot land her antique aircraft on
paved runways and the runway at Meadow Brook Field is asphalt.
I Please call either Peter H. DeVries or Carl von Isenburg at 336.896.1300 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
GEOSCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, P.A.
1

1

Peter H. DeVries
Project Geologist
Carl von Isenburg
Senior Civil Engin
,r PEt3??9?a4
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC 9
404/401, PCN November 2010
C

1
1
1

1
1

APPENDIX A:
Susan Dusenbury Project Purpose and Justification Letter
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC
404/401, PCN
Appendix A
November 2010

1

1

Susan Dusenbury
1374 Brook Cove Road Walnut Cove, NC 27052
I am improving my land for two purposes. Primarily it will serve as usable pasture/farm land and be
aesthetically pleasing. The secondary purpose is to provide a safety zone on the occasion that i would
use the property to land my antique airplane, The Federal Aviation Regulations allows airplane
operations on non-airport areas such as farms, waterways and lakes. In fact, this is a very common
practice.
I am a very experienced pilot having flown for over forty-six years and having accumulated over 22,000
flying hours. I am a retired commercial pilot and currently fly antique airplanes. These antiques require
an extra measure if due diligence with regard to safety. Emergencies are rare but contingent plans must
be taken into consideration when operating this category of airplane. My small 1937 Piper J-2 requires
only 700-900 feet for normal operation which could increase to a needed length of approximately three
times that amount in the event of an abnormal or emergency situation. Having said that, antique
airplanes are equipped with early design brakes, i.e., marginally effective brakes, and engines that are
' less reliable than their modern day descendants, Also, practically all antique airplanes are equipped
with a conventional type landing gear-the design standard of that era-which severely limits forward
visibility. This type of landing gear also makes ground handling characteristics difficult. My 19371-2 was
' originally equipped with a tail skid rather than a tail wheel. Tail skids are made of steel and do not lend
themselves to paved surfaces due to the high amount of sparks and wear.
L7

1
1

Taking these things into consideration one can easily understand that a forward clearway is a prudent
but hopefully, never used par*. of an irnl na nnaratinn, In an?mergpnni tide rlamrta. ? u,n??lii mnct?
certainly aid in preventing what could otherwise turn out to have catastrophic consequences.
The established airfield east of my property Is a "Restricted" airfield being defined by the Federal
Aviation Administration as an "airport for non-public use except in an emergency but depicted on the
map for landmark value".
My property will not be depicted on any aviation chart nor is it required to be as it Is private farm land.
Regarding the condition of the property, the entire property was riddled with abandoned clay pits with
the clay being used to make bricks. I was not aware that the area declared a stream in the northern part
of the property was a stream nor was I aware that any of the surrounding area was wetlands. Now that
I am about to restore that area it is even more critical that I preserve the pipe in the middle of my
property. Incidentally, this area was not shown as a stream on the survey maps that 1 have.
I directed the placement of pipe in the middle of the branch based on my conversations with my grading
contractor as well as other individuals. My prior experience with your agencies was such that I expected
the work would be authorized and that it was close to a threshold that did not require mitigation. I have
since found out that i was mislead and that I was wrong.

1
' The relocation of the branch was necessary for safety reasons-as a backup road for emergency vehicles
and as a backup road to get off of the property. it would also serve as a safety net in case of engine or
' brake failure on my antique airplane. I did not understand that the stream needed to be relocated to a
certain standard.
' I am directing my consultants to make haste in the preparation of any and all documents that you may
need.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B:
Inspection Records for Activities Under Stormwater General Permit NCGO10000
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC
404/401, PCN
Appendix B
November 2010
_O
N
o
N
O
0
O
O
0
C7
U
z
w
0.
4a
W
kz
W
z
w
a a
w
Q
3
H?
a
o
F
zW
A
z
W
F
EU
a
x
O
1
1
1
1
U
z
z
z
v
W
x
W
W
W
x
F
fx
O
rL.
V
z
a
0
z
0

O
E
Cd
s
w
0
o ?
? Y
44 C
0 0
>
O ?
U ?
X N
O
o --
W .?
H
U
w
z
a
c
Q
Q
z
9

0
Cd
N
L
t
cq
N
c
s
3
?I
h
TJ
.a
u
U
C
N
L
a
a?
U
C
0
U
N
S1
Y
G
_o
c
o .?
rQ L
vl c
W s
N
Q O
W .?
a-
a
z=
O ?n
u o
fem. c
O d
Y
L
z?
waj
o
?_
Q ?
G
>
R
r Y
L S7
U a
a

M
a CL

U
V s w w

b ? ? z
z d Cd

U z z

L - ? z z z z

4r i
0 0
U
u

W
c e
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7

CO Gy, N N N N N N
A ?: o, rn rn a, rn rn
i
y u
:- o
0
C_ u O
C

as
?U
N
ww a ,, :
MM?

+
U O O? lD ?
?
i M M

W O O
O ?n
r O
O O
Cl O
Cl
. _
d M
oo N
m _h O O - N N M
O
V
N
C
b
CIS
T3
L
-v
U
C
u
N
a
N
U
C
O
Y
U
.fl
E
C
0
s .c
t
? L
L
a>
3d
Q
c
W v
..7 s
a <'
w .C
? c
O `
Q cd
U a
14-
A c
W a)
3°
Q Cd
L
Cd
O

y
L
d
•
O

R
O
u

L

_ L
N
C

GA w

C ? Y
.3.
0 0

o? U
a?

d
o

O y
? u
vo

?w
•? o
r'"
L
wz
N
w+ L
0
u

a? u
CL N

0
o

o
cc
Ln e?
a
CC
o
8n A M

N
N ?

O
C Y \J >>

O
a
Q cl.
E
o

o z ?
o

O V
? ? U
a"i O C U Cd ui
C4

=?
x I V] cd
U
O
z O
z 03 t:
o?
O ?
a
XI I

° Yv
cd
cl-
G
o

U °
Cl tom, O
°v

o =Awl

s ?
3 u Cd
as
U
7
C's cj C
c;i? .. Cl)
Cd Cl.
N
73-

i
UD
° U)
O N
o
? ? U
L}t
ca
N N V] T O C
bq
c
O cd O

0

cn
x bbo

1
rn
N
O
1 C
o z
o
o c
o ?
? a
U ?
z ?
W ?
a a
? C
Q ?
z ?
w x
?w o
F
Q
F?1
a
O
N
G?
v? w
z
w
F
Q
' a
Q ?

E
L
O
N
T
N
L
0
O
'Ir
N
C
t
3
-vl
L
a?
cc!
U
C
N
zz.
U
C
O
v
°
U
N
Q
C?
G
E
O
o .i
Q?
w s
a?
a?
? S
Q
a?
O?
? a
z .__
Okr
rUr_ c
1?1
OS
L
Z
W a
n a
W (4-
Q a>i
C
>
R
°r u F+
A , 0

U Q v
N
C

0

U

G?

s. s ? s
p o b
U

c
L
a> y
C1
00
w
w y;
0

a

d ?

U

ww
u
? ^1
?
C Y O
c ;a
d ? d
?
U.
C

w
IZI
aRi...^O
ti 4
3
-?I
'O
-v
c
U
C
N
a
a?
U
C
O
N
U
N
s?
4..
0
t O
? L
L
y O
c? .S=
3 v
F N
C L
oQ
¢aj
L
Q U
tr)
ao
ocz
U "
Qcc
Z L
i >
Wo
Q0
3°
O
H
F1
A_
a?
a
H
a
O
A
z
Q
z
0
Q
F" z
W
A
W
W
W
on
v
h N
n
C N ? T
O
a Q
? CI.

o
3 I ? ?,
J

? y
O

N N Cl. U a N
Q Q ? ? ro
l ?I U) > Cd
a
O
z
O
z O

a
.

y
N N ? ? Y

Cl- ¢
4? O cd
G' °

? z
as

am a3 ? C
y
.,
Cl.
75
"Cy 'C7 U ? CL
0 0 °?' 0 3

4)
N
T c0
C
Cd
U C
cn V L

cad ° co
o
C to
L
4-1
CZ
• • •
O
i
R
N
C
a>
c
0
U
t
O
C
as
E
112
0
E
110-
0
T
a.
O
U
Y
.a
0
LL
1
1
1
rn
O_
N
O
O
' O
_O
O
V
U
z
a
W
a
a
a
w
z
t w
w
?a
w
F
a
a
o
H
Zw
A
z
a
W
U
Q
0
w
a
V
F
w
0
a
E
L
O
T
p
0
L
O
t
d-
N
C
.C
3
'al
h
'D
cz
-a
CIS
U
C
O
U
L
O
U
0
a
.n
E
0
O
0
E
0
L
c?
O -i
S
W s
a?
C. i
c
? a
E-'
Z.E
O'r
U c
[o, f
C" L
Z
wcz
? a
a?
C
>
cQ
A L =
O
O
U
Q

CC

U

r7
v
is S
? ~
v

c
L y^_
u y
C1.

ae
0

cQ w

O
w p
O
?

A ? a o

s.
O
u
O O
\

7\)

a p a
.D y L
w+
L U ?
mw

L
O
0
t
N
.C
3
C
ca
'a
Cd
-a
a
aca
U
C
a)
a)
N
Q.
U
c
O
aU.+
U
0
L1

0
s .`
U i
`
v =
i
L
? s
i
O i
Q
4
c
.a i
Q c
c
a
0.? L
cc
Q a
Z a
? C
c?
0.? >
w?
30
aCd
O L

.C .
V) L
Q
0 0

Ca
? L
o a)

Ww
L
? O
6) ?
s y.
?
N

4Li t

U
?
+
.
bA
C? ca

vU >> Q
II L y
n
L

w
O ?

;s
ov

O y
u u
U
d
O
•
? L
?o

A

cu ?•

f ? a
OL L
W Q
Z

U
CQ ?
t
o

'O
u a

A: ., q O
°J
?
w s

L o O
CQ pD u
it.
.L' a+
L u O
p y a)
in A
H
r
A
a
F
a
a
H
V]
a
0
z
d
z
O
F
Q
E-'
z
w
A
w
w
r.?
as
on
-a
c•
c
C N ?--? T
C- E
O Q
CY o
O c a)
z o
a)
t I -'O N
N t3. O \
G U
U N
N a) Cl.
L
O O
z z cd t:
0
O ? a)
I L
ci C
N Q) n ? +S+
Cl. 'n Cd
0
U o
0
Cl.
c>
?-' Cd
x z
3 C
? aS O
tin 0
9'. R3 'O
O U 0 V
'd a' a
4- ?] y
v' `n Cd 0 3
O O 2 v
O Q? V) ? O C
? > cUC .bA
U? cn
an v'
c a)
.? T7 .r7 U ,
> > Q)
>1 $". Q.
aj w cli M O
L
cn U) V) Cd
aJ
CL
L
c
a?
C7
O
U
O
C
O
U
a,
O
Cd
C
O
E
L
4°
L
s
O
v
CIS
E
L
<°
O
T
0
U
Cd
0
w

CN
0
N
Q
N

O ?
O ?
' O
o G
Q
z G
a ?
w ?
a F
a c
C
z ?
w a
w
U F
?z c
xW
F
Q
Zz ?
A ?
? -sJ
N 0 <;.
Q ?
W
a
w
O
a
a
c
o `? Gd
T A L p
? p r
U v
N Q
cd
L
0
v
N
C
cl CC
c?
-o ?
U
C G> .
N ?
? U
a ?
o ? {
U S a ?
a.
bD \
L L
d ?
a
O o
a.
y_
p C
O -
L Q
N
C
L Y?I
O
N p C
L ?
c A a o ?
co
w
0
N ^ L
U
C v ,a p
v
krl
o c ' °c. c v
,o
L yr t-.
tic
O 7 q
? c4:

U
a?
C
E
G
E
O
L
O
V
Q
W
a;
a
W
W
0
a
E-'
Z
O
U
w
O
z
'w
v^
l
W
Q
O
t
N
L
3
-al
c
T
't7
C
N
Cd
U
C
a?
N
U
C
O
a?
U
a?
.n

O
cd
s .o
L
in
? L
3 v
F N
Co a
C
Q ?
?a L
Q Ui
w -?
? o
O ?
w .?
rh Y
Q ?
zL
o
cG
w
Qo
CG ?
L
V
E-'
A
a
L?
r
Q
w
a
F
a
0
A
z
Q
z
_o
Q
E¦
z
w
c
w
w
r.?
.O
N
O
U
Cy
D
)
O ?
z
N
N ?

? o
N N C?• U
CC Ca

Q
o C1I? ?
cd 0
.

>
OU
z z `d

0 0

I rA a4

U N

N

A ?
cl-
o
w U ?

„? ? ? cad

v

N

O U
N
Q-.
E

N Cd ?:

I:; c
(n Cd

m m
Cd

U N N

V) Ell (n Cd

N
co
•a
3
O
C
.-Y
T
E
w
o
N r,
O ?
N ??3i
N
Y 1-J L
L
Yi
? J
C
O
L _
E y
L
O Q-
O
O 75
O 1
z
0
y U
Y
0
L
Cl)
O
? C
Q
y
3 L
U C
cd
Q
= o
c
O
U ..C
o
c?p 4. T
O O
L
V1 La
C ?
Y CO 'II
T V) cd
? o
w

1
U
0
N
1
I *
0
O
O
O
O
U
z
w
a
W
z
w
z
w
C7
W
w
3
H ?
?o
H
zW
A
z
w
E"
U
d
' a
0

f.

0
N
R
N
3
?I
tC
b
b
U
U
N
N
r.
O
Cd
N
V
U
G

b
O T
O .?
W? C
a?
n
d
W .?
a c
z .?
O?
Uc
O?
N t.
zU
w?
o
d ?

o

R
L C
A L o

?
U

o
C

V1
L: c

o ?

V ?

L
?
Oo
a
w
O L
o
?
^^
R ?
ti

w C
o ?
U
A o. f
a ? f
C r
L

0
c a?
'?
o t9
?,
V y L
r. ;G R

w
? Q

O
N
3
b
0
a?
cq
U
0
N
a?
U
O
cd
N
Cd
"d
?0+
U
a?
.fl
.v:
0
cti T
U ?
cad S
3d
o(L
a
4-
C
a a
Hkr
A c
O?
V ?
a?
x?
U °
c
A
E" r
N?
w
O ?-
Cd
c
a?

•
O R
rn
R L
j O
V

rA ?
v w

uno

o~
w ?
bn

R R
v 3
°:

r R
? L

a?
R
L

O
w

y U
C ?
? o
^o w.,
•? R
? L

U
A
y C•

? w
?
o

w
z
0-4
O }"
O
w
4
C
H H
o
w

y U
R CL
a
W

>, o 0
R b0 V

Q H
55 G1 H
s 2
? r
e .?
a? ^
cc
U QC?'
c a
a Q xI CIS
O
z
H ?
? ? a? r• U
O
? Q Q ? v
O O Cd U
Z z
a.?
S , Cc
R3
1-4 0
Cl)
{ ? x
N
? Qr "Cf
w O O N
l cd L
M
cd
.,
O O O
Gn _o
C
Vi En d cd
Cd ? Cd ?
U ?
F-1 0
v
U
CIO)
a
3
U
O
U
U
U
Cd
Y
0
r
ci
Q
V)
0
(D
C1,
4-a
0
09)
N

1

Fil

1

fl

APPENDIX C:
PCN Forms
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC
404/401, PCN
Appendix C
November 2010

n

1
1

1
1

20100996
0 \fArfi9
Office Use Only:
s€ .r {?^?,??- Corps action ID no.
[)Uja,
i a < DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ?X Section 404 Permit ?X Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27,32 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ?X No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
?X 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
No For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
? Yes ?X No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ?X No
If. 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 ?X No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ?X No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ?X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Dusenbury Brook Cove Road
2b. County: Stokes -,
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Walnut Cove \Z/ Lt-i U V/ LS
2d. Subdivision name: NA
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information -W
WETLMII)SA( E QUALITY
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Susan Dusenbury
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 0413 1256
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Susan Dusenbury
3d. Street address: 1374 Brook Cove Road
3e. City, state, zip: Walnut Cove, NC 27052
3f. Telephone no.: 336.591.3931
3g. Fax no.: 336.591.3931, on request
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

1

1

F

7

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: Peter H. DeVries
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Geoscience & Technology, P.A.
5c. Street address: 2050 Northpoint Drive
5d. City, state, zip: Winston-Salem, NC 27106
5e. Telephone no.: 336.896.1300
5f. Fax no.: 336.896.1020
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

0

C

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 6952-08-88-1430
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.2939 Longitude: 80.159
1 c. Property size: 65.18 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: Ash Camp Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Roanoke
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 is rural and mostly wooded. Surrounding sites are predominantly agricultural and secondarily residential. There are no major housing
developments in the immediate vicinity. The project site contains approximately 20 acres and has been recently graded and seeded.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 4.1
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 4,050
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
See attached text.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See attached text.
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? 0 Yes ? No ? Unknown

Comments:
See attached text.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ? Preliminary ?X Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Peter H. DeVries Agency/Consultant Company:
Other: Geoscience & Technology, P.A.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
See attached text.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ?Yes ?X No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ?X No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

1
1

1
1
7

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
?X Wetlands ?X 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
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 2b.
Type of impact 2c.
Type of wetland 2d.
Forested 2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other) 2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 T Fill Unknown Yes Corps 0.022
W2 T Excavation Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps 0.012
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g. Total Wetland Impacts: 0.034
2h. Comments:
W1 is a temporary fill impact (erosion control riprap apron) in Wetland area #1 (WLi). W2 is a temporary excavation impact (diversion berm) in Wetland
area #3 (WL3). See attached text.
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.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) 3b.
Type of impact 3c.
Stream name 3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)? 3e.
Type of
jurisdiction 3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet) 3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P Culvert UT2 to Ash Camp Creek PER DWQ 4 140
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 140
3i. Comments:
See attched text.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

C

1
1

I?

1
1

i

r

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 individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody
type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 Choose one Choose
02 Choose one Choose
03 Choose one Choose
04 Choose one Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number 5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1 Choose one
P2 Choose one
5f. 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, then 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. Project is in which protected basin? ? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Catawba ? Randleman ? Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Stream name 6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required? 6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet 6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
131 Yes/No
B2 Yes/No
B3 Yes/No
B4 Yes/No
B5 Yes/No
B6 Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

r

0

J

H

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See attached text and letter.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See attached text.
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 0 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

pro
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: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Makin 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: Choose one
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 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

1

1
1
1
1

u

r

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 ? Yes ? No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 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 7 of 10
F

1
1
C

1

1

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes Q No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes [] No
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 x? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
Once completed, stormwater flow will be more or less according to natural topography. The project does not include addition of any impervious
surface or facilities that could contribute to stormwater pollution.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
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 E ]Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
[]Coastal counties
?HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply []ORW
(check all that apply): []Session Law 2006-246
[]Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been [] Yes [] No
attached?
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 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

1
1

1

7
1
7

11

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ?Yes ?X 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)?
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
l
? Yes ? No
etter.)
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, ?X Yes ? No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ?X Yes ? No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
See attached text and letter.
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ?Yes g 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.
Not applicable.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

1

1
1

u
n
P

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 ?X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. -
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Physical observation of Schweinitz's sunflower in areas adjacent to the project limits.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ?X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
US Fish and Wildlife database.
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 ?X 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?
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. This determination is pending. Response to inquiry not received as of the date of this application.
Response will be forwarded as soon as available. Based on anecdotal evidence, there are no areas of historic or archaeological interest on the site.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ?X Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
See attached text.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA (FIRM) flood map #3710694200J.
Susan B. Dusenbury
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an auth r' tion
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

C
1
1
L
1
1

1

1

11

C

APPENDIX D:
Wetland Data Sheets
Dusenbury, Stokes County, NC
404/401, PCN
Appendix D
November 2010

1
' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

Project/ Site: Dusenbury, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/1/10
Applicant / Owner:_ _ Susan Dusenburv County: Stokes
Investigator: Peter H. DeVries,Geoscience & Technology, P.A. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: A
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No x Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: WLDP 001
(explain on reverse if needed)
I VEGETATION
1

1
I'?

1
0

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Licguidambar styraciflua Tree FAC, FAC+ 9.
2.Ouercus phellos Tree FAC,FACW- 10.
3. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 11.
4, Rosa palustris Shrub OBL 12.
S,Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Very little undergrowth.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-2 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0-2 (in.) X Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology is present based on saturated soils within 12-inches, recent
sediment deposits, drainage patterns, oxidized root channels and the presence
of hydric soils within 12-inches.

SOILS
A1.001
J
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): xornsboro (map symbol xoA) Drainage Class: poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Thermic Typic Natraqualfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8+ A 2.5 Y 6/3 2.5 Y 6/2 10%/slight Clay loam, friable
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: soils are hydric from the surface. Saturated in upper 12-inches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks: Location is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.

1

L I
L__J
1
1

u

u

' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

Project/Site: Dusenbury, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/1/10
Applicant/ Owner: Susan Dusenbury County: stokes
Investigator: Peter H. DeVries,Geoscience & Technology, P.A. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No__2__ Community ID: B
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes X No Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: WLDP 002
(explain on reverse if needed)
1 VEGETATION

1

1

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 9.
2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Area cleared of vegetation. Assume vegetation same as A1.001.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >14 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >14 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Location is just outside of saturated soil area. Area distrubed; however,relict
hydrology indicators not present and hydrology of area not significantly altered.

SOILS
B1.002

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Hornsboro (map s ymbol HoA) Drainage Class: poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Thermic Typic Natraqualfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 2.5 Y 5/3 5 Y 6/2 50%/sharp Clay loam, friable
0-16+ B 10 YR 6/6 2.5 Y 7/1 25%/sharp Clay, firm, massive
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: soils are hydric from the surface. Not saturated in upper 12-inches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Within a Wetland? Yes_ No x
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks: Location is NOTclassified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

I

H

' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

1

1
1
Project/Site: Dusenbury, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/1/10
Applicant / Owner: Susan Dusenburv County: Stokes
Investigator e er Fi. e ri

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No_
Z_ Community ID: B
_
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes X No Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: wLDP 003
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 9.
2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC+ loop
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Area cleared of vegetation. Assume vegetation same as A1.001.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: o (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >16 (in
) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
. Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >16 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Location is approximately 15 ft outside of saturated soil area. Area distrubed;
however,relict hydrology indicators not present and hydrology of area not
significantly altered.

SOILS
B1. 003
11
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Hornsboro (map s ymbol HoA) Drainage Class: poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Thermic Typic Natraqualfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 7.5 Y 5/3 Clay loam, friable
4-13 B 7.5 YR 6/6 7.5 Y 7/2 20%/sharp Sandy Clay, very firm
13-16+ Bl 7.5 YR 6/6 7.5 Y 6/1
45$/sharp Clay, very firm
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Solis List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric from the surface. Not saturated in upper 12-inches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Within a Wetland? Yes_ No x
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks: Location is NOTclassified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

J

1

1
1

1

Project/Site: Dusenbury, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/1/10
Applicant/ Owner: Susan Dusenbury County: Stokes
Investigator: Peter H. DeVries,Geoscience & Technology, P.A. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID: C
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes x No Transect ID: 2
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x Plot ID: WLDP 004
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Fuirena squarrosa Herb OBL 9.
2.Polygonum amphibium Herb OBL 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Area cleared and filled; vegetation based on adjacent undisturbed area.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
X Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland Hydrology indicators are based on elevation of original soil surface and
adjacent undistrubed area.
L7
SOILS
rq nna
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla (ChA) Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-26 Fill
26-32 A 10YR Y 6/6 2.5 Y 7/1 15%/sharp Sandy clay, very firm
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric from the original soil surface. Saturated in upper 12-inches.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yes x No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks: Location is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.

C

1
I

I

' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

u

1

1

1
Project/Site: Dusenbury, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/1/10
Applicant / Owner: Susan Dusenbury County: Stokes
Investigator: Peter H. DeVries,Geoscience:& Technology, P.A. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID: B
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes x No Transect ID: 2
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: WLDP 005
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Festuca sp. Herb FAC, FACU 9.
2. Rubus arvensis Shrub FAC, FAC- 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 0%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation NOTPresent Based Upon Greater than 50% of the-Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Area cleared and filled and recently seeded w/ fescue; vegetation based on adjacent
undisturbed area.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:P
resence or absence of Wetland Hydrology indicators is based on elevation of
original soil surface and adjacent undistrubed area.

1
SOILS
R? nn-;

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla (ChA) Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-19 Fill
19-33 A 10YR Y 6/6 Sandy clay, very firm
33-38+ B 10YR Y 6/6 2.5 Y 7/1 30%/sharp Sandy clay, very firm
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric 14-inches below the original soil surface. Saturated below
14-inches.
Wt 1 LAND Ut I tRMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Y Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Location is NOT classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

IL

1

1

1

u
1

FJ

LIB
1

1
r

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: DusenbuYy, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/4/10
Applicant / Owner: Susan Dusenburv County: Stokes
Investigator: Peter H. DeVri es, Geo science & Technology, P.A. State: Nc

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: C
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No x Transect ID: 3
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: WLDP 006
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Fuirena squarrosa Herb OBL 9.
2.Polvaonum amnhibium Herb OBL 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Area undisturbed and adjacent to disturbed area.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: o (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:Undistrubed wetland area.

SOILS
rZ nnr

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla (ChA) Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions

inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) ,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR Y 6/3 10 YR 5/6 10%/sharp Clay loam, friable
4-8+ B 10YR Y 6/1 10 YR 6/3 20%/sharp Clay loam, friable
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric below 4-inches. Saturated from surface.
vvl` I uArvv ut I tKMINA I IUN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks: Location is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.

0

1

' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

1?

1
1

l

1

Project/Site: Dusenbury, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/4/10
Applicant/ Owner: Susan Dusenbury County: Stokes
Investigator: Peter H. DeVries,Geoscience & Technology, P.A. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID: B
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes x No Transect ID: 3
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x Plot ID: WLDP 007
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca sp. Herb FAC. FACU 9.
2.Rubus arvensis Herb FAC, FAC- 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 0%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation NOTPresent Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL, in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Area cleared and filled and recently seeded w/ fescue; assume previous vegetation
to be similar to C2.005.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >19 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >19 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: p
resence or absence of wetland Hydrology
indicators is based on elevation of
original soil surface and adjacent undistrubed area.

SOILS
B3. 007
1
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla (ChA) Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confine Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-39 Fill
39-47 A 2.5Y Y 4/3 10YR Y 4/6 208/slight Sandy clay loam, friable
47-58+ B 10YR Y 5/4 Sandy clay, loose
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is very well drained 9-inches below original soil surface.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Within a Wetland? Yes_ No x
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Location is NOT classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
1

u
1
E

u
11

1

u
n

1
1

1

1

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: Dusenbury, 1374 Brook Cove Rd., Walnut Cove Date: 10/4/10
Applicant / Owner: Susan Dusenburv County: Stokes
Investigator: Peter H. DeVries,Geoscience & Technoloay P.A. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No X Community ID: c
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes X No Transect ID: 3
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: WLDP Dos
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fuirena scruarrosa Herb OBL 9.
2.Polvaonum amohibium Herb OBL 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are Classified as
FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
Area has been cleared; assume previsou vegetation same as C3.006.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12 (in.) _ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Disturbed and filled wetland area;assume sediment deposits and drainage pattern
similar to C3.006.
1

SOILS
C3.008

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla (ChA) Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-18 Fill 10YR Y 5/4 Sandy clay loam, friable
18-25 A 10YR Y 4/2 10 YR 6/3 10%/sharp Clay loam, friable
25-31 B 10YR Y 5/2 10 YR 6/3 25%/sharp Clay loam, friable
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric from original soil surface; saturated 7-inches below original
surface.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Remarks: Location is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.
1
1

1

1

1