20220398 Ver 3_401 Application_20230201

Staff Review Form
NORTH CAROLINA
Envlronm¢ntcl Qvofiry
Updated September 4, 2020
Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
Yes No
ID#*
20220398
Version* 2
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes
• No
Reviewer List: * Joey Winston:eads\jbwinston
Select Reviewing Office: *
Asheville Regional Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
Yes
No
How much is owed?* $240.00
$570.00

Project Submittal Form
*
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: *
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
New Project
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
More Information Response
Other Agency Comments
Pre -Application Submittal
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
Project Contact Information
Name:
Eric Romaniszyn
Who is submitting the information?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #:
20220398
20170001 (no dashes)
Project Name: Mitchell County Schools
Is this a public transportation project?
Yes
No
Existing Version:
2
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes No Unknown
County (ies)
Mitchell
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Mitchell School PCN and PJD application package
11.59MB
01252023.pdf
Only pdf or kmz files are accepted.
Describe the attachments or
comments:
This is version 3 of the application. No 30-day prefile was submitted since the original application was
submitted March 11, 2022.
Sign and Submit

By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
• I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
• I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I agree that submission of this online form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a
written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form.
Signature:
Submittal Date: 1/26/2023
Is filled in automatically.

CLearWaLer
An EnviroScience CompanyL
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc
www.cwenv.com
January 25, 2023
Brandee Boggs Mr. Paul Wojoski
US Army Corps of Engineers NC DWR, 401 Permitting & Buffer Unit
Asheville Regulatory Field Office 512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
RE: Mitchell County Schools (+/- 14Ac)
Nationwide Permit 39
Mitchell County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Boggs and Mr. Wojoski,
The attached Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) request is being re -submitted on behalf of
Mitchell County (Attn: Allen Cook, County Manager). There were delays in completing the
Stormwater Management Plan, which resulted in the withdrawal of previous submissions. The
Project Engineer, Civil Design Concepts, completed the stormwater plan and submitted the
materials directly to the NC Division of Water Resources on January 5, 2023.
The project boundary is +/- 14 acres and is composed of Mitchell County PIN# 0872-00-70-6960
at 5085 S. 226 Hwy near Bakersville, North Carolina. The applicant is seeking Nationwide Permit
39 for permanent wetland and stream impacts associated with development of a new middle
school.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800 if you have any questions regarding the
attached application and supplemental information. A copy of this application has been sent via
email to Ms. Andrea Leslie, NC Wildlife Resources Commission; Mr. Byron Hamstead, US Fish
and Wildlife Service; and Mr. Mitchell Anderson, NCDEQ Division of Water Resources - Asheville
Office.
Sincerely,
Eric Romaniszyn
Senior Scientist
Copy issued:
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources, Asheville Office — Mitchell Anderson
NC WRC — Andrea Leslie
US FWS, Asheville Office — Byron Hamstead
145 Th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Mitchell County School
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑� Commercial ❑
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
+/- 14 acre tract for development of the new Mitchell County Middle school and associated
infrastructure including access roads, parking lots, utility connections, and stormwater BMPs.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Mitchell County
S. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: ClearWater, an EnviroScience Company
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form BSb]: N/A
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.966291-82.116785; the project site is located at 5085 SR 226, is is on the northwest corner of
the intersection of SR 226 and Ledger School Road (SR 1193)
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: PIN# 0872-00-70-6960
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Mitchell
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Spruce Pine, NC
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: UT to Cranberry Branch
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: French Broad/06010108
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
U Nationwide Permit # 39
❑ Regional General Permit #
❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑✓ Section 10 & 404 ❑
F]Unauthorized Pre -Application Request
Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

r -I
Lea ter
f•i
An FrWimScivnea Campnyr,
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Scan McLendon, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
-and-
NC DWR, Webscape Unit
Attn: Paul Wojoaki
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
1, the current landownertmanagi.ng partner of the property identified blow, hereby authorize
ClexrWater Enviromental Consultants, Inc. (CPC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the
processing of jurisdictional deMmnination requests and permits to inipact Wetlands and Water of
the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act andi'ar Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. CEC is authorized to provide supplmental information as
needed at the request of the USACE or DWR.
Additionally, ) authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, US Army Carps ofEngincers
to enter upon the property herein described for the purposes of conducting onsite investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Wetlands and Waters of the US subject to Federal
,ju isdictiota under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Riven and Harbors
Act of 1899.
Property Owner of Record: Mitzhcl
Property Owner Address: Ma Criimson Laurel C;ircly uito 1
Bg.F;xsville, NC. 29705
Phone Number: 929-688-2139
Email address: Mang a r,M tchellcount . r
Property Location: 50$5 :}?(i Hzghway..i3�[cer�svwille hr 7 5
4v�mer/Managing paimcr Signature, �m t�"
Owner/Managing Printed name: Lli)yd H s , Jr interim County Manager
Date: Match 3,2022
145 7th. Avenue West, Suite B
Hende7soaville, MC 28792
Phone, A28-698-9800
vvww.cwenv X0M

L
U
z
:.1
O
�
..� a * x ;s
O
W
ram,
W N
N
a
O
a
a
od
z
Q
aaa
r
N Oa
Q
vo00
Ao O
Q
A
A U
Z
4
CC
y
.y.
y
L � N
a
y
c y
CD
O
O
CV e. H
Q a
to
� � A

Mitchell County, North Carolina
Parcel
Parcel ID Parcel Address
Total Land &
Improvements
0872-00-70-6960 5085 S 226 HWY $142,000
Owner Information
Owner MITCHELL COUNTY
Owner Address 26 CRIMSON LAUREL CIRCLE
BAKERSVILLE NC 28705
Transfer Date 12/16/2019
generated on 31412022 12:2 7:43 PM CST
Data as of Assess Pay Year
Year
2/26/2022 8:00:00 AM 2021 2021
I --- *---Information
GIS 001081892
Section & Plat
District No. 03
State Assigned District No.
03
Township No. 001
Routing No.
390
Parcel Address 5085 S 226
HWY
Parcel Address
5085 S 226 HWY
Legal Desc.
Parcel Information
Topography
Services
Level
N
Zoning
Water
N
High
N
Property Class Code 620
Sewer
N
Low
N
Neighborhood Code 14
Gas
N
Rolling
Y
Neighborhood Factor .00
Electricity
Y
Swampy
N
Neighborhood Type B
Sidewalk
N
Flood Hazard
Street or Road Code A
Alley
N
Waterfront Property Type
....armation
Current AV - Total Land
$74,800
AV - Res. Land & Lots
$0
Legal Acreage
14.0500
Current AV - Total Improv.
$67,200
AV - Res. Improv.
$0
Average AV/Acre
$0
Total Land & Improvements
$142,000
AV - Res. Land & Improv.
$0
Appraisal Date
2/1/2017
AV - Commercial Land
$0
AV - Non -Res. Land
$0
Change Reason Desc.
12
AV - Comm. Improv.
$0
AV - Non -Res. Imp.
$0
Prior AV - Total Land
$0
AV - Comm. Land & Imp.
$0
AV - Non -Res. Land & Improv.
$0
Prior AV - Total Improv.
$0
AV - Dwelling
$0
AV - Classified Land
$0
Adj. Factor Applied
0.00
AV - Farmland
$0
AV - Homesite(s)
$0

oe'�F wATr'
E�Q�
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1d.
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
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X 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 ❑X No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
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:
Mitchell County School
2b.
County:
Mitchell
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Bakersville
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Mitchell County
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
608 / 934
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
26 Crimson Laurel Circle, Suite 1
3e.
City, state, zip:
Bakersville, NC 28705
3f.
Telephone no.:
828-688-2139
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑X 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:
R. Clement Riddle
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
ClearWater, an EnviroScience Company
5c.
Street address:
145 7th Avenue W; Suite B
5d.
City, state, zip:
Hendersonville, NC 28792
5e.
Telephone no.:
828-698-9800
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
0872-00-70-6960
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.966291 Longitude:-82.116785
1 c.
Property size:
14.05 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
UT to Cranberry Branch
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C, Tr
2c.
River basin:
French Broad
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 project site is an old farm field with vegetated cover nearly all pasture and few trees and shrubs. The property is bordered by Ledger School Road
road to the east and SR 226 to the south. Various residential and commercial properties exist along these roads. The property is bordered to the north
and west by residential properties and wooded land cover.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.856
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 1,051
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To develop the site for a new middle school, including access roads, parking lots, utility connections, and stormwater BMPs.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See Attachment A.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
ClearWater delineated the site on 02/28/2022 and the PJD request is included in Attachment C.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
El 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

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. 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 P
Fill
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
No
Corps
0.0333
W2 P
Fill
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
No
Corps
0.0643
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.098
2h. Comments:
W1 = site WB on impact map (Attachment B), and W2 = WC.
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
UTto Cranberry Br
PER
Corps
3
65.6
S2 P
Choose one
UT to Cranberry Br
PER
Corps
2
12
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
77.6
3i. Comments:
Stream impact is 0.0086 acres. S1 = site SA on impact map (Attachment B), and S2 = SC.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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.
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 pond or lake construction proposed, the 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 any 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

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Attachment A
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Attachment A
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 ❑X 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
El 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: Non -riparian wetland
Type: Riparian wetland
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
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

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

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 ❑X 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?
28
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Civil
Design Concept prepared the Stormwater Management Plan that was adapted to site conditions and complies with Mitchell County and NC DWR
standards for runoff quantity and quality. CDC submitted the Plan directly to DWR on January 5, 2023.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
NC DEQ
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Mitchell County
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑X Other: DWR 401
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑X 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

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
0 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
El Yes 0 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
❑ Yes X❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes 0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑Yes 0 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
El Yes 0 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.
The project only involves development of the project parcel with utility connections that abut the project boundary. This project will not result in
additional development that could affect downstream water quality.
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.
Proposed
sanitary sewer mains on site will tie into an existing Mitchell County sanitary sewer main along SR 226. Wastewater will be
treated by the Spruce Pine Sewer Treatment system.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑X 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?
USFWS IPAC weblink, NHP Natural Heritage Data Explorer. See Attachment D for the T&E survey report.
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?
NOAA's Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper. Accessed March 3, 2022 at https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/.
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?
NC DNCR State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties web GIS server. See Attachment A for additional comments.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
NC Floodplain Mapping Program. FEMA Map Nos. 3710087200J, 3710088200J, 3710088100J, 3710087100J; effective February 4, 2009 (Figure 6).
Eric Romaniszyn
January 25, 2023
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applic r7t/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Figures 1 - 6

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
r : Project Boundary
110
0q,
�e Rd
y�R
Le,�5
-'
n
C'
226
�o
al
�d
Q
4 r
� S
pm y
8af sa'h 4
Y
*
a�lAv f1aMUk
Pine
0 0.5 1
2
�='G 3�
Rd
'3,
Miles
o
ee�� in9ifsh Rd rIPr
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078
CLearWater
Mitchell County,
Vicinity Map
North Carolina
Figure 1
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
r Project Boundary ':�7 %��
•
v. r_ Vol
oil T1
IJ �7
f t
Project Boundary
.�- n le • .
%
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet 1f L f
Drawn by: TJK 11.8. 9' CEC Proje,,t# 1078 el,!�
CLearWater Topographic Map
Mitchell County, USGS 1:24K Quads:
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street p S ruce-Pine and Micaville
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 2

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
F------- i
: Project Boundary
Project Boundary
N
or
L--- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
I it
4�
-------------------------------------------
0 50 100 200
Feet
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078
Mitchell County, CLearWaLer Aerial Imagery Map
NCCGIA (2018)
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street Figure 3
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
77 1
Project Boundary
Soil
BdA: Bandana sandy loam, 0-3%
slopes, occasionally flooded
EcC: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 8-15% slopes
EcD: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 15-30% slopes, stony
C
EdE: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 30-50% slopes, stony
C
SaB: Saunook silt loam, 2-8%
slopes
C
ScC: Saunook silt loam, 8-15%
slopes, stony
Ud: Udorthents, loamy
EcC
rF �
EcC
r=
EcD
SaB
SCC
BdA
Project Boundary
�1
�1
BdA
4
Ud '.
i
N h
4<4
SCC
0 50 100 200
Feet T .. *WIV. - -
� 3�
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078 - —
Mitchell County, OLearWater USDA Soil Map
North Carolina NRCS Web Soil Survey
32 Clayton Street Figure 4
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
J

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Potentially Jurisdictional Waters of the US
Stream
Wetland
Linear
Feet
Acres
(stream bed)
Acres
SA
986
0.101
WA
0.005
SB
53
0.002
WB
0.136
Sc
12
0.001
WC
0.236
W D
0.479
Total
1 1,051
1 0.104
1 Total
0.856
WC
DP-4 DP-3
N
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US 11
Potential Wetland 11
Water of the US 11
111
DP-1
WB II
,I
.I
I
,I
.I
.I
,I
WA ,I
I
Potential Wetland
I
1
I
Water of the US
,I
I
I
I
Potential Wetland
I
I
I
I
I
Water of the US
SA I
i
r
Project Boundary j
I
I
- Stream
I
------------------------------------------------------
Wetland
-- --
Culvert
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Contours - 2ft
Data Form
0
100 200 400
Feet
Drawn by: TJK 3.1.22, ClearWater Project# 1078
Mitchell County,
CLearWater
Wetland and Stream Map
North Carolina
AnErrviro5clenceCompanyg
Delineated February 28, 2022
145 7th Avenue W; Suite B
Figure 5
Hendersonville, NC 28792

Mitchell County School (+/- 14 AC)
r x sr .. 4
Project Boundary
r
� ■ !^ _ 1.
r,
c:
Project Boundary
FEMA Flood Zones
- 100-Year Floodplain
Drawn by: TJK 3.1.22; ClearWater Project# 1078
Mitchell County,
North Carolina
[LearWater
An Errviro5cience Companyg
145 7th Avenue W; Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
01
a
0 500 1,000 2,000
Fey
FEMA Flood Zone Map
FIRM Panels: 3710087200J,
3710088200J,3710088100J,
3710087100J (all eff. 2/4/09)
Figure 6

Attachment A
PCN Additional Information

Section B, 3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be
used:
The approximately 14.05-acre site is proposed for development of a new middle school. Land use
is an old farm field with vegetation being nearly all pasture with scattered trees and shrubs (see
Attachment F, Photo Log). Much of the site will be cleared and graded for the main building with
associated entrance road, parking, and utilities (see Attachment B, Impact Map).
Approximately 88 LF of 42" diameter HDPE culvert will be installed to route a stream under the
eastern proposed entrance. A Nationwide Permit 18 is requested to authorize this impact. The
culvert would be embedded to allow for aquatic passage. We estimate 26.67 cubic yards of fill
will be required.
The development will connect to existing municipal water utilities along Old Ledger Road on the
western project boundary. This may require one stream crossing (temporary impact) due to the
location of the stream channel, depending on final site design. If so, the utility lines will be installed
"in -the -dry" under the stream bed via open cut (see Attachment B, Impact Map).
Site preparation will involve placing fill in the stream and wetland areas. The total stream impacts
would be 0.0086 acres and wetland impacts would be 0.098 acres. Authorization for these is
requested under a Nationwide Permit 39.
Typical construction equipment will be used during development of the site, including bulldozers,
excavators, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.
Section D, la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed
impacts through project design.
The project design avoids permanent impacts to 0.758 acres of wetland (89% of wetland area on
site) and 973.4 linear feet of stream (93% of stream length on site). Only two permanent stream
impacts are proposed for installation of two culverts at the school entrance road. All other
proposed structures and infrastructure including entrance roads, parking areas, and the building
footprint are proposed in uplands.
Section D, 1b. Specifically describe measure taken to avoid or minimize proposed impacts
through construction techniques.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measure will be implemented to avoid unintended
impacts to waters on and adjacent to the site. A pump -around system will be used to install the
culverts and utilities in the dry (see Attachment B, Impact Map).
Section F, 7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources.
The proposed project is within 1-mile of two "Determined Eligible Boundaries", the Upper Poplar
School (ML0098, surveyed only) approximately 0.3 miles to the north along Ledger School Road,
and the Lydia Holman House (ML0055, surveyed only) approximately 0.9 mile to the west along
SR 226 HWY. Development activities will be contained to the project site and it is the opinion of
ClearWater that project construction will not negatively affect any adjacent properties. Due to the
terrain and vegetative cover, the new school will be outside of the veiwshed of these properties.
Data were gathered from NCHPO's HPOWEB 2.0 for General Audience. Accessed March 8,
2022.

Attachment B
Impact Map

¢
(n
r
U
- ¢
U
�
U
¢
a
d
¢ ¢
K
N o
o
w LL
Z
m
N
aK
m
w a
p
o N
U a
Z fy
Z-
O
o v
¢ ¢
0
r o
p
Z o
Z
< O
O
w N
a
¢
n
Z
N
X
w
z
w
3
o
H
N
W
\ �
\ �
z
e
xt,
/
�\
S
d
3
U
3
r
U
cri
¢
d
d
p U
Z ¢
10
Z ¢
< M
r M
¢ v
w o
o
3�
r
z n
w�
z a
¢
w
Z M
� ,6
�m
a�
W DO
d N
I
Ledger School Road
No TCcocd,,d R/w Found
S.K. 1193
Menvsn�ea AWN'
'N tt dUonsll�
U
J
Z
m
p
N
O
o
N
LL¢
Ow=
¢
DO
2
J
o¢� J
(�
v
J
� m
D/�/� Q
U
rN
W
¢
U U r F
¢¢""
�saa
J
Z
p
��
W
o
¢
o
U
z�Z
Z
2
J
o
a
J¢
a
O—
Do N
m
N
NOO
a a
LL
moo
oIW
ow�ww
W
p W
yN
r
v)
Wdr d r
L
r
era
m�
�¢¢
O<�
,w
No
�o
D=
<�r
orrrr
Ewa
3N3
a0000
5�
G
m
mM"
y{BSI
w
� w
O �
N
w �
waz
z
<Yo
¢zOf
<na
¢m
� � O
¢ N
r�r
U d
0-
r.
� r O
¢ga
of of
V�wd

0
co
M
r
N
0
Z
Fz
w
0
Q
K
W
x
z
v
- 2740 v
Fi
0 0
N
n n
N N SL+O L
r
(OZ-X3) 9'0
(OZ-LZ) 0"L£
:FC
Z la3nln0
LZ :NI ANI
Z :NI 'nNI
9£LZ 'dol
9+OL :V1S
oz 'doad
a
r
N
0
M
r
N
N
J
J
u
00+0 L
nNl
nNl
(OZ-X3)
(OZ-LZ)
9'0£LZ NI
OL£LZNI
/
00,
U d
\\\ \ 0
\ N �
U, U'
D z z
0 �\ N N
z �
U I \
X _ / U)
00
No �
No
` o
J W N
O Z N
V, Q
J
W N
= Q
�a
W
J
V
E
a
UOU
w m - z
w
------------------

wo
Z N Q H w O
Q �w O c)J _
Z Q J K
w Og Z w3
s
ac5
UO Z U ? N O
O J W Z X U Z
aj LL� 03 aN
Q �O OW ax
�W wO oo Qw
F NO
03 oO dZ
o, a o w I Ledger School Road M1
O I R W Found
z z I No[ocor&AP,
0 o x .. << 6 R S.R.
Q Z a w w N C DOT ed RIW �"
U J O Z a t bLishcd t} a diRoaally
z O O
I
O� aoz U� -� maiitan �l •s � ;,,
J� _ '- i-� -�-��°�"' as •a \
aw 9D f� x o
s
m� ��' � �� � ��� ate'``/ ✓. ';L � �„,.. :, 7'_ o
ir10
r ,
asp-.
s III ��LIIIIflflj
w
i
o a
n =�o
o
cD
� \ r
�a
fn
o � a
a3
Ov
as mo—
o,
dx'49'fFM! j5
Z
� s
Z0H oo
aw
O J
2 a
J N m N Z
= -J _
<.i
C� Co � Ca a uz
G C E C

Attachment C
Preliminary Jurisdiction Request
Application

CLearWaLer
An EnviroScience CompanyL
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www.cwenv.com
January 25, 2023
Ms. Brandee Boggs
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
RE: Mitchell County Schools Tract (+/- 14 Ac)
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request
Mitchell County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Boggs,
The attached Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) request is being submitted on behalf
of Mitchell County (property owners). The project site is Mitchell County PIN# 0872-00-70-6960
and is located at 5085 S 226 HWY, Bakersville, NC.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800 if you have any questions regarding the
attached PJD request.
Sincerely,
Eric Ro aniszyn
Senior Scientist
145 7' Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Mitchell County School
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑� Commercial ❑
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
+/- 14 acre tract for development of the new Mitchell County Middle school and associated
infrastructure including access roads, parking lots, utility connections, and stormwater BMPs.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Mitchell County
S. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: ClearWater, an EnviroScience Company
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form BSb]: N/A
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.966291-82.116785; the project site is located at 5085 SR 226, is is on the northwest corner of
the intersection of SR 226 and Ledger School Road (SR 1193)
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: PIN# 0872-00-70-6960
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Mitchell
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Spruce Pine, NC
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: UT to Cranberry Branch
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: French Broad/06010108
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #
❑ Regional General Permit #
❑✓ Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑✓ Section 10 & 404 ❑
F]Unauthorized Pre -Application Request
Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

r -I
Lea ter
f•i
An FrWimScivnea Campnyr,
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Scan McLendon, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
-and-
NC DWR, Webscape Unit
Attn: Paul Wojoaki
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
1, the current landownertmanagi.ng partner of the property identified blow, hereby authorize
ClexrWater Enviromental Consultants, Inc. (CPC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the
processing of jurisdictional deMmnination requests and permits to inipact Wetlands and Water of
the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act andi'ar Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. CEC is authorized to provide supplmental information as
needed at the request of the USACE or DWR.
Additionally, ) authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, US Army Carps ofEngincers
to enter upon the property herein described for the purposes of conducting onsite investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Wetlands and Waters of the US subject to Federal
,ju isdictiota under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Riven and Harbors
Act of 1899.
Property Owner of Record: Mitzhcl
Property Owner Address: Ma Criimson Laurel C;ircly uito 1
Bg.F;xsville, NC. 29705
Phone Number: 929-688-2139
Email address: Mang a r,M tchellcount . r
Property Location: 50$5 :}?(i Hzghway..i3�[cer�svwille hr 7 5
4v�mer/Managing paimcr Signature, �m t�"
Owner/Managing Printed name: Lli)yd H s , Jr interim County Manager
Date: Match 3,2022
145 7th. Avenue West, Suite B
Hende7soaville, MC 28792
Phone, A28-698-9800
vvww.cwenv X0M

urisdictional Determination Renuest
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http: //www. saw. usace. army. mil/Mi ssions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CounlyLocator. aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 5085 S. 226 Hwy
City, State:
Bakersville, NC
County: Mitchell
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 0872-00-70-6960
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: ClearWater
Mailing Address: 145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Telephone Number: 828-698-9800
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
✓1 I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Mitchell County Schools
Mailing Address: 26 Crimson Laurel Circle, Suite 1
Bakersville, NC 28705
Telephone Number: 828-688-2139
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION',4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
See attached Ag
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner
Date
Signature
ent Authorization
✓❑ Authorized Agent'
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
El I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
✓❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
�❑ I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
❑ Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
Size of Property or Review Area +/- 14 acres.
❑ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
RI
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
35.966291
Longitude:-82.116785
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 1 lx 17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).'
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
❑ Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoLy-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
RICompleted appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
Vicinity Map
❑ Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/does/regulatory/re gdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App A Prelim_ JD_ Form_fillable.pdf
' Please see http://www.saw.usace.ariny.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdietion/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federaljurisdiction underthe regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: March 3, 2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: See Agent Authorization
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mitchell City: Bakersville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.966291 Long.:-82.116785
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: UT t0 Cranberry Branch (Class C, Tr)
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑■ Field Determination. Date(s): 02/28/2022
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
See Attachment

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
❑■ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS Topographic, Aerial, USDA Soil and Stream/Wetland Delineation Map
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ 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: 1:24K Spruce -Pine and Micaville Quads
0 Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: NRCS Web Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
El
❑■
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
Photographs: ❑■ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
NCCGIA 2018
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑■
Other information (please specify): Property Ownership Information
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature Afid date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

Table
1. Table of Aquatic Resources in Review Area which "May be" subject to Regulatory Jurisdiction
Site
Number
Latitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
Longitude
(Decimal
Degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resources in
review area (Acreage and
linear feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section 404
or Section 10/404)
WA
35.96S873
-82.116379
O.00S AC
Wetland
404
WB
35.966028
-82.117128
0.136 AC
Wetland
404
WC
35.966282
-82.116669
0.236 AC
Wetland
404
WD
35.966337
-82.116257
0.479 AC
Wetland
404
SA
35.966186
-82.116412
986 LF / 0.101 AC
Wetland
404
SB
35.966807
-82.116314
53 LF / 0.002 AC
Wetland
404
SC
35.967054
-82.116474
12 LF / 0.001 AC
Wetland
404

Parcel Information

L
U
z
:.1
O
�
..� a * x ;s
O
W
ram,
W N
N
a
O
a
a
od
z
Q
aaa
r
N Oa
Q
vo00
Ao O
Q
A
A U
Z
4
CC
y
.y.
y
L � N
a
y
c y
CD
O
O
CV e. H
Q a
to
� � A

Mitchell County, North Carolina
Parcel
Parcel ID Parcel Address
Total Land &
Improvements
0872-00-70-6960 5085 S 226 HWY $142,000
Owner Information
Owner MITCHELL COUNTY
Owner Address 26 CRIMSON LAUREL CIRCLE
BAKERSVILLE NC 28705
Transfer Date 12/16/2019
generated on 31412022 12:2 7:43 PM CST
Data as of Assess Pay Year
Year
2/26/2022 8:00:00 AM 2021 2021
I --- *---Information
GIS 001081892
Section & Plat
District No. 03
State Assigned District No.
03
Township No. 001
Routing No.
390
Parcel Address 5085 S 226
HWY
Parcel Address
5085 S 226 HWY
Legal Desc.
Parcel Information
Topography
Services
Level
N
Zoning
Water
N
High
N
Property Class Code 620
Sewer
N
Low
N
Neighborhood Code 14
Gas
N
Rolling
Y
Neighborhood Factor .00
Electricity
Y
Swampy
N
Neighborhood Type B
Sidewalk
N
Flood Hazard
Street or Road Code A
Alley
N
Waterfront Property Type
....armation
Current AV - Total Land
$74,800
AV - Res. Land & Lots
$0
Legal Acreage
14.0500
Current AV - Total Improv.
$67,200
AV - Res. Improv.
$0
Average AV/Acre
$0
Total Land & Improvements
$142,000
AV - Res. Land & Improv.
$0
Appraisal Date
2/1/2017
AV - Commercial Land
$0
AV - Non -Res. Land
$0
Change Reason Desc.
12
AV - Comm. Improv.
$0
AV - Non -Res. Imp.
$0
Prior AV - Total Land
$0
AV - Comm. Land & Imp.
$0
AV - Non -Res. Land & Improv.
$0
Prior AV - Total Improv.
$0
AV - Dwelling
$0
AV - Classified Land
$0
Adj. Factor Applied
0.00
AV - Farmland
$0
AV - Homesite(s)
$0

Figures 1 - 6

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
r : Project Boundary
110
0q,
�e Rd
y�R
Le,�5
-'
n
C'
226
�o
al
�d
Q
4 r
� S
pm y
8af sa'h 4
Y
*
a�lAv f1aMUk
Pine
0 0.5 1
2
�='G 3�
Rd
'3,
Miles
o
ee�� in9ifsh Rd rIPr
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078
CLearWater
Mitchell County,
Vicinity Map
North Carolina
Figure 1
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
r Project Boundary ':�7 %��
•
v. r_ Vol
oil T1
IJ �7
f t
Project Boundary
.�- n le • .
%
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet 1f L f
Drawn by: TJK 11.8. 9' CEC Proje,,t# 1078 el,!�
CLearWater Topographic Map
Mitchell County, USGS 1:24K Quads:
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street p S ruce-Pine and Micaville
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 2

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
F------- i
: Project Boundary
Project Boundary
N
or
L--- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
I it
4�
-------------------------------------------
0 50 100 200
Feet
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078
Mitchell County, CLearWaLer Aerial Imagery Map
NCCGIA (2018)
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street Figure 3
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
77 1
Project Boundary
Soil
BdA: Bandana sandy loam, 0-3%
slopes, occasionally flooded
EcC: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 8-15% slopes
EcD: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 15-30% slopes, stony
C
EdE: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 30-50% slopes, stony
C
SaB: Saunook silt loam, 2-8%
slopes
C
ScC: Saunook silt loam, 8-15%
slopes, stony
Ud: Udorthents, loamy
EcC
rF �
EcC
r=
EcD
SaB
SCC
BdA
Project Boundary
�1
�1
BdA
4
Ud '.
i
N h
4<4
SCC
0 50 100 200
Feet T .. *WIV. - -
� 3�
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078 - —
Mitchell County, OLearWater USDA Soil Map
North Carolina NRCS Web Soil Survey
32 Clayton Street Figure 4
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
J

Mitchell County Project (+/- 14 AC)
Potentially Jurisdictional Waters of the US
Stream
Wetland
Linear
Feet
Acres
(stream bed)
Acres
SA
986
0.101
WA
0.005
SB
53
0.002
WB
0.136
Sc
12
0.001
WC
0.236
W D
0.479
Total
1 1,051
1 0.104
1 Total
0.856
WC
DP-4 DP-3
N
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US 11
Potential Wetland 11
Water of the US 11
111
DP-1
WB II
,I
.I
I
,I
.I
.I
,I
WA ,I
I
Potential Wetland
I
1
I
Water of the US
,I
I
I
I
Potential Wetland
I
I
I
I
I
Water of the US
SA I
i
r
Project Boundary j
I
I
- Stream
I
------------------------------------------------------
Wetland
-- --
Culvert
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Contours - 2ft
Data Form
0
100 200 400
Feet
Drawn by: TJK 3.1.22, ClearWater Project# 1078
Mitchell County,
CLearWater
Wetland and Stream Map
North Carolina
AnErrviro5clenceCompanyg
Delineated February 28, 2022
145 7th Avenue W; Suite B
Figure 5
Hendersonville, NC 28792

Mitchell County School (+/- 14 AC)
r x sr .. 4
Project Boundary
r
� ■ !^ _ 1.
r,
c:
Project Boundary
FEMA Flood Zones
- 100-Year Floodplain
Drawn by: TJK 3.1.22; ClearWater Project# 1078
Mitchell County,
North Carolina
[LearWater
An Errviro5cience Companyg
145 7th Avenue W; Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
01
a
0 500 1,000 2,000
Fey
FEMA Flood Zone Map
FIRM Panels: 3710087200J,
3710088200J,3710088100J,
3710087100J (all eff. 2/4/09)
Figure 6

Data Forms

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School City/County: Mitchell Sampling Date: 2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County State: NC Sampling Point: UPL
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 35.966291 Long:-82.116785 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: BdA - Bandana sandy loam NWI classification: Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ShallowAquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: UPL
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
None
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2.
FACU species 95 x 4 = 380
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 115 (A) 430 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.74
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Dichanthelium clandestinum
40 Yes
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Solidago canadensis
35 Yes
FACU
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Pycnanthemum virginianum 10 No FAC
4.
Festuca arundinacea
60 Yes
FACU
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Ligustrum sp.
2 No
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Juncus effusus
10 No
FACW
height.
7
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
157 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
79 20% of total cover:
32
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: UPL
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' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 6/4 80 10YR 5/8 20
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School
City/County: Mitchell
Sampling Date:
2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County
State: NC
Sampling Point:
DP-1
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz
Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Slope (%):
2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B
Lat: 35.966028 Long:-82.117128
Datum:
NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: SaB - Saunook Silt Loam
NWI classification:
Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This is a linear wetland in the ripairan buffer of a small tributary.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) X
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
LNG FORM 61 16-4-SG, JUL 201H Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP-1
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 60 x 1 = 60
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 80 x 2 = 160
1. None
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 140 (A) 220 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.57
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Juncus effusus
80 Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Carexlurida
20 No
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Polygonum sagittatium 20 No
4. Carex vulpinoidea
40 Yes
OBL
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
160 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
80 20% of total cover:
32
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1
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' Locz Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 5/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
6-12 10YR 4/1 85 7.5YR 4/4 15 C PL Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox(S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
—Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 1479 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 1479 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School City/County: Mitchell Sampling Date: 2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County State: NC Sampling Point: DP-3
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 35.966282 Long:-82.116669 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: SaB - Saunook silt loam NWI classification: Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
X Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
LNG FORM 61 16-4-SG, JUL 201H Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP-3
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 100 x 1 = 100
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
1.
Alnus serrulata
40 Yes
OBL
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
Rosa sp.
25 Yes
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
Lyonia ligustrina
20 Yes
FACW
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 140 (A) 190 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.36
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
85 =Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
43 20% of total cover:
17
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
15 No
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Carex striata
60 Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Tear tumb 20 No
4.
Andropogon virginicus
5 No
FACU
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Trailing Rubus sp.
10 No
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
110 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
55 20% of total cover:
22
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3
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' Locz Texture Remarks
0-2
7.5YR 3/1
90
7.5YR 3/3 10 C M Muck Distinct redox concentrations
2-14
2.5Y 2.5/1
50
2-14
2.5Y 4/1
45
10YR 3/6 5 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
X 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox(S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Two matrix colors on second soil horizoi
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
—Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 1479 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 1479 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School City/County: Mitchell Sampling Date: 2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County State: NC Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 35.966337 Long:-82.116257 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: BdA - Bandana sandy loam NWI classification: Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This is a mowed wetland field
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Found gilled snail
LNG FORM 61 16-4-SG, JUL 201H Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP-2
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 60 x 2 = 120
1.
None
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 80 x 4 = 320
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 180 (A) 480 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.67
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Juncus effusus
50 Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Carexlurida
40 Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Festuca arundinacea 80 Yes FACU
4.
Packera aurea
10 No
FACW
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Scirpus sp.
5 No
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
185 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
93 20% of total cover:
37
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2
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'
Locz
Texture Remarks
1-4
10YR 4/1
90
10YR 3/6 10 C
M
Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
4-10
5Y 3/1
90
10YR 3/6 10 C
M
Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
10-12
5Y 2.5/1
95
2.5Y 4/4 5 C
M
Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox(S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
—Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 1479 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 1479 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

Attachment D
Threatened and Endangered
Species Survey

Mitchell County School
Approximately 14 Acres
Mitchell County, NC
Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Habitat Assessment
Prepared For
C DOCI.i,,, cats. PA
168 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Prepared By
CLearWaLer
An Enviro5cience Company
145 7t" Avenue W
Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
March 5, 2022
(Revised January 25, 2023)

Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................2
2.0
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................2
3.0
HABITAT CLASSIFICATION.................................................................................3
3.1
Fallow Field..................................................................................................................... 3
3.2
Riparian Corridor............................................................................................................ 3
3.3
Scrub Shrub Wetland..................................................................................................... 4
3.4
Maintained Emergent Wetland..................................................................................... 4
3.5
Soils..................................................................................................................................4
4.0
PROTECTED SPECIES........................................................................................4
4.1
Appalachian Elktoe........................................................................................................ 5
4.2
Bog Turtle........................................................................................................................ 5
4.3
Gray Bat........................................................................................................................... 6
4.4
Northern Long-eared Bat.............................................................................................. 7
4.5
Rock Gnome Lichen...................................................................................................... 7
4.6
Virginia Spiraea.............................................................................................................. 8
5.0
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................8
List of Tables
Table 1: US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC - Official Species List.
Table 2: USDA Soil Units occurring within the project boundary.
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2:
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3:
NCCGIA Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 4:
Habitat Map
Figure 5:
NRCS Soils Map
Appendices
Appendix A: US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC - Official Species List and NC
Natural Heritage Program Data
Appendix B: Photolog
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 1
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report includes methods used and results for a threatened and endangered
species survey and habitat assessment for the proposed approximately 14-acre project
known as Mitchell County School. The study area occupies a non -forested tract at the
intersection of Ledger School Road and NC Highway 226 in Bakersville, Mitchell County,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The site ranges in elevation from 2,716 feet to 2,806 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) (Figure 2).
The threatened and endangered species survey was conducted to determine the
occurrence of or the potential for existence of federally listed threatened and endangered
animal and plant species within the study area (Figure 3). Completion of this survey was
directed by and complies with three current state and federal regulations: the Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543), the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25), and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12-22).
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The protected species surveys and habitat assessment was conducted on February 28,
2022, on the approximately 14-acre project by ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an
EnviroScience Company (ClearWater) to determine the potential for occurrences of animal
and plant species listed as endangered or threatened by current federal regulations.
An official species list was obtained through the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Information and Planning and Consultation (IPaC) on February 28, 2022. This species list
provides existing data concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened or
endangered species in the defined project boundary (Appendix A). The FWS lists five
federally threatened and endangered species, in addition to the bog turtle (threatened due
to similar appearance) as occurring or potentially occurring in the project boundary.
Table 1. FWS IPaC generated Official Species List for federally protected species listed as
potentially occurring within the project boundary.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Appalachian elktoe
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Endangered
Bog Turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Threatened'
Gray bat
Myotis grisescens
Endangered
Northern long-eared bat
Myotis septentrionalis
Threatened
Rock gnome lichen
Gymnoderma lineare
Endangered
Virginia spiraea
Spiraea virginiana
Threatened
' Threatened due to similar appearance; not subject to Section 7 consultation.
A database search from the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) dated March 4, 2022,
provided existing data concerning the presence or potential occurrences of federal and
state listed species in Mitchell County, North Carolina within one mile of the site (Appendix
A).
The NHP indicates one low -accuracy element occurrence (EO) of bog turtle within a one -
mile radius of the study area. This EO is approximately half a mile to the east, along Bear
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 2
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

Creek. No other threatened or endangered species EOs were found in the NHP database
as occurring within one mile of the project boundary.
During pedestrian field surveys conducted by ClearWater biologists, site habitats were
identified and compared with recognized habitats for six federally protected species
potentially occurring on the site. Potential flora were identified to the taxonomic unit level
necessary to determine if the observed specimen was a protected species.
3.0 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION
During our site visit on February 28, Tyson Kurtz and Britten Yant identified four habitats:
fallow field, riparian corridor, scrub shrub wetland, and maintained emergent wetland
(Figure 4). A general overview of the site and descriptions of each habitat type are
included below.
The project site covers approximately 14 acres of moderately steep fallow fields and a
lowland area surrounding a stream. Except for the scrub shrub wetland and riparian
corridor, the site appears to be regularly mowed.
Streams on site are unnamed tributaries to Cranberry Branch. The main stream has an
average width of four feet within the project boundary. The stream banks are failing
throughout the reach and the channel is incised two to three feet. Minimal woody
vegetation is rooted along the stream channel.
The following is a description of each of the habitat types identified on the referenced site.
3.1 Fallow Field
The fallow field habitat is composed primarily of tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea) and long leaf plantain (Plantago lanceolate). Additional species
observed in the field include common plantain (Plantago major), white clover
(Trifolium repens), cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), common cat's ear
(Hypochaeris radicata), blue stem (Andropogon sp.), selfheal (Prunella vulgaris),
wild carrot (Daucus carota), common dandelion (Teraxacum officinale), and
multiflora rose (Rosa mutiflora).
3.2 Riparian Corridor
A narrow zone of non -mowed riparian area is present along the stream banks. In
general, trees are absent along this corridor except for the upstream end where
red maple (Acer rubrum) and white pine (Pinus strobus) are present. Although
sparse, the dominant shrub species observed along the reach are tag alder
(Alnus serrulata) and multiflora rose. Additional shrubs species observed include
box elder maple (Acer negundo), pussy willow (Salix discolor), American holly
(Ilex opaca), black cherry (Prunus serotina), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The dense
herbaceous layer is dominated by tall fescue, blackberry (Rubus sp.), golden
ragwort (Packers aurea), deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), and
common rush (Juncus effusus). Additional herbaceous species observed include
joe pye weed (Eutrochium sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), common evening
primrose (Oenothera biennis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), common mullein
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 3
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

(Verbascum thapsus), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), water cress (Nasturtium sp.),
multiple species of sedge (Carex spp.), and water purslane (Ludwigia palustris).
3.3 Scrub Shrub Wetland
The scrub shrub wetland habitat includes the wetland areas outside of the regularly
mowed field. This habitat is approximately half composed of tag alder thickets while
the other half lacks shrubs. Soils in this wetland type are mostly mineral with a
pocket of shallow organic soils in one isolated area containing tussock sedge
(Carex stricta). The dominant shrub species observed is tag alder. Additional
shrubs observed include swamp rose, multiflora rose, willow (Salix sp.), red maple,
and winterberry (Ilex verticillata). The dense herbaceous layer is dominated by
common rush, boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), swamp dewberry (Rubus
hispidus), blackberry, golden ragwort, and multiple species of sedge (Carex spp.).
Additional species observed in the herbaceous layer include Allegheny monkey
flower (Mimulus ringens), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), mountain mint (Pycnanthmum
sp.), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), and arrowleaf tearthumb
(Persicaria sagittata).
3.4 Maintained Emergent Wetland
Two wetlands are present within the regularly mowed area of the floodplain and
contain only herbaceous species. Common rush, tall fescue, and an unidentifiable
sedge (Carex sp.) are dominant. Additional herbaceous species observed include
buttercup, golden ragwort, longleaf plantain, water purslane, and Kentucky blue
grass (Poa pratensis).
3.5 Soils
Soils mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Mitchell
County Soil Survey are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 5 (NRCS 2019).
Table 2. USDA Soil Units occurring within the project boundary.
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
BdA
Bandana sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, occasionally flooded
EcC
Evard-Cowee complex, central mountain, 8-15% slopes
EcD
Evard-Cowee complex, central mountain, 15-30% slopes, stony
EdE
Evard-Cowee complex, central mountain, 30-50% slopes, stony
SaB
Saunook silt loam, 2-8% slopes
ScC
Saunook silt loam, 8-15% slopes, stony
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
The following is a brief description of each federally listed species included in the survey, its
recognized habitat, and comments regarding survey results for that species.
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 4
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

4.1 Appalachian Elktoe
Federally listed as endangered, the
Appalachian elktoe (Alismidonta
raveniliana) has a thin but not fragile,
kidney -shape shell, reaching up to
about 3.2 inches in length, 1.4 inches
in height, and 1.0 inch wide (Clarke
1981). Juveniles generally have a y
yellowish -brown periostracum (outer
shell surface) while the periostracum of
the adults is usually dark brown to
greenish -black in color. Although rays
are prominent on some shells, particularly in the posterior portion of the shell,
many individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The shell nacre (inside shell
surface) is shiny, often white to bluish -white, changing to a salmon, pinkish, or
brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell; some
specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches (adapted from Clarke
1981). Only two populations of the species are known to survive. The healthiest
of these populations exists in the main stem of the Little Tennessee River
between Emory Lake at Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina, and Fontana
Reservoir in Swain County, North Carolina. The second population occurs in the
Nolichucky River system. The Appalachian elktoe has been reported from
relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, well -oxygenated,
moderate- to fast -flowing water. It has been observed in gravelly substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks in bedrock, and occasionally in
relatively silt -free, coarse, sandy substrates (Department of the Interior 1994).
Suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe is not present within the study area. The
streams on site range from 2-5 feet wide and are severally degraded. The stream
lacks sufficient woody vegetation along the banks, resulting in the banks
sloughing into the stream bed. Pools are filled with sediment and much of the
cobble and gravel substrate is embedded with fines. The stream lacks shade and
has an average depth of less than one foot.
It is the opinion of ClearWater that the proposed project would have no effect on
this species.
4.2 Bog Turtle
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is
federally listed as threatened in North Carolina.
This is the smallest emydid turtle, and one of
the smallest turtles in the world. Adult
carapace length is 7.9 to 11.4 cm (3.1 to 4.5
inches). The dark brown or black carapace
may be marked with radiating light lines or a
light blotch on the vertebral and pleural scutes.
Scute annuli are usually prominent in juvenile
and young adult specimens, but the carapace
may be nearly smooth in old adults. The head,
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company
Project #1078 Mitchell County School
Page 5

neck, and limbs are typically dark brown with variable reddish to yellow spots and
streaks. A large reddish -orange to yellow blotch is visible behind and above
each tympanum, sometimes merging into a continuous band on the neck. The
upper jaw is weakly notched. The plastron is brown or black, but often with
lighter yellow blotches towards the medial and anterior scute edges. A mature
male bog turtle has a concave plastron and a long, thick tail, with the vent
posterior to the rear edge of the carapace with tail extended. The female has a
flat plastron and a thinner, smaller tail, with the vent at or beneath the rear
carapace edge.
The southern population of the bog turtle, ranging from southern Virginia to
northern Georgia, is also protected with a threatened designation because its
physical appearance is similar to the northern population. The southern bog
turtle population is separated from the northern population by approximately 250
miles. However, individual bog turtles in the southern population closely
resemble individuals in the northern bog turtle population, causing difficulty in
enforcing prohibitions protecting the northern population. Therefore, the FWS
has designated the southern population as "threatened (similarity of
appearance)." This designation prohibits collecting individual turtles from this
population and bans interstate and international commercial trade. It has no
effect on land management activities of private landowners in southern states
where the bog turtle lives.
Potentially suitable habitat for bog turtle was not found on site. The wetlands on
site are isolated from upland forested areas and lack deep organic soils required
for nesting activities. Additionally, the northern population of bog turtle does not
occur in North Carolina. It is of the opinion of ClearWater that the proposed
project would have no effect on the northern bog turtle.
4.3 Gray Bat
The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is the largest member of its genus in the eastern
United States. Its forearm measures 40-46 mm, and it weighs from 7-16 grams. It
is easily distinguished from all other bats within its range by its mono -colored fur.
All other eastern bats have distinctly bi-or tri-colored fur on their backs. Following
molt in July or August, gray bats are dark gray, but they often bleach to chestnut
brown or russet between molts (especially apparent in reproductive females
during May and June). The wing membrane connects to the foot at the ankle
rather than at the base of the first toe, as in other species of Myotis. Gray bats
roost in caves year-round. Most winter caves are deep and vertical; all provide
large volume below the lowest entrance and act as cold air traps. A much wider
variety of cave types are used during spring and fall transient periods. In
summer, maternity colonies prefer caves that act as warm air traps or that
provide restricted rooms or domed ceilings that are capable of trapping the
combined body heat from thousands of clustered individuals.
No naturally occurring suitable habitat (caves) for the gray bat was observed on
this site. It is of the opinion of ClearWater that this project would have no effect
on this species.
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 6
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

4.4 Northern Long-eared Bat
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) is a medium-sized
bat about 3 to 3.7 inches in length but with a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. As its
name suggests, this bat is distinguished by its long ears, particularly as
compared to other bats in its genus, Myotis, which are actually bats noted for
their small ears (Myotis means mouse -eared). The NLEB is found across much
of the eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces from
the Atlantic coast west to the southern Northwest Territories and eastern British
Columbia. NLEBs spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called
hibernacula. They typically use large caves or mines with large passages and
entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no air currents.
Summer habitat for the NLEB consists of the cavities, hollows, cracks, or loose
bark of live or dead trees typically greater than three inches DBH (diameter at
breast height).
No naturally occurring suitable wintering habitat for the NLEB exists within the
property boundary. Potential NLEB summer habitat is very limited because the
site is nearly all pasture and field; habitat that is present is restricted to a few
mature trees along the riparian corridor. ClearWater biologists did not conduct a
bat survey to confirm or deny the presence of protected bat species.
In November 2022, the USFWS announced a final rule reclassifying the northern
long-eared bat as endangered; it has been listed as threatened since 2015. The
new rule will take effect March 31, 2023. The USFWS is developing guidelines
and we expect new consultation requirements and stricter limitations on tree
clearing during the bat's active season (April 1 to October 31). If this is required,
then tree clearing will have to occur November 1 to March 31.
Because of limited NLEB potential habitat, it is ClearWater's opinion that the
project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the NLEB.
4.5 Rock Gnome Lichen
Federally listed as an endangered species, rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma
lineare) occurs on rocks in areas of high humidity either at high elevations
(usually vertical cliff faces) or on boulders and large rock outcrops in deep river
gorges at lower elevations. Distinguishing characteristics include dense colonies
of narrow (.04 inch) straps that are blue -grey on the upper surface and generally
shiny -white on the lower surface. Near the base they grade to black (the similar
species of Squamulose cladonias are never blackened toward the base).
Fruiting bodies are borne at the tips of the straps and are black (similar Cladonia
species have brown or red fruiting bodies). Flowering occurs July through
September.
Suitable habitat for this species was not observed within the project boundary.
No rock outcrops are present, and the entire site is less than 3,000 feet above
MSL. It is the opinion of ClearWater that the proposed project would have no
effect on the rock gnome lichen.
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 7
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

4.6 Virginia Spiraea
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) is federally listed as an endangered species.
It occurs along rivers and streams and relies on periodic disturbances, such as
high -velocity scouring floods, which eliminate competition from trees and other
woody vegetation.
Virginia Spiraea is a perennial shrub with many branches. It grows 3 to 10 feet
(ft) (0.9 — 3.0 meters; m) tall. The alternate leaves are single -tooth serrated, 1 - 6
inches (in) (2.5 — 15.2 centimeters; cm) long and 1 to 2 inches (2.5 - 5 cm) wide;
occasionally curved; and have a narrow, moderately tapered base. The leaves
are also darker green above than below. The plant produces flowers that are
yellowish green to pale white, with stamens twice the length of the sepal. It
blooms from May through early July, but flower production is sparse and does
not begin until after the first year of establishment.
Suitable habitat for Virginia spiraea does not exist within the proposed project
boundary. The riparian corridor has minimal woody species but lacks gravel bars
or benches, typical of Virginia spiraea habitat. The stream is only 2-5 feet wide
and is deeply incised with failing banks. Additionally, no species in the Spiraea
genus were observed. It is the opinion of ClearWater that the proposed project
would have no effect on the Virginia spiraea.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the
Mitchell County School site, ClearWater observed potentially suitable summer habitat for
NLEB. However, based on the project's location the project satisfies the 4(d) rule and
consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is not required. The USFWS
recommends tree cutting between November 1 and April 14 as a voluntary conservation
measure.
It is of the opinion of ClearWater that the development of the Mitchell County School tract is
not likely to adversely affect federally protected species listed as potentially occurring within
the project boundary.
Potential flora were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to determine if the
observed specimen was a protected species.
Because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species
and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants; it is possible that endangered
species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential findings
at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate agencies to
prevent potential adverse impacts.
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 8
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

6.0 REFERENCES
NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Database). 2022.
https://ncnhde.natureserve.orq/; Accessed March 2022
NCWRC. 2020. Appalachian Elktoe Distribution.
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Mollusks/Appalachian-
Elktoe#3017843-distribution; Accessed March 2022.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2019. Web Soil Survey for Mitchell
County. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx-
Accessed November 2019.
USFWS. 1992. Virginia Spiraea (Spiraea virginiana Britton) Recovery Plan.
USFWS. 1997. Recovery Plan for Rock Gnome Lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) (Evans)
Yoshimura and Sharp. Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.
USFWS. 2022. Appalachian Elktoe. Environmental Conservation Online System.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5039#ranqelnfo; Accessed March 2022.
USFWS. 2022. Bog Turtle. Environmental Conservation Online System.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962; Accessed March 2022.
USFWS. 2022. Critical Habitat Interactive Mapper.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://services.arcgis.co
m/QVENGdaPbd4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/USFWS Critical Habitat/Feature
Server&source=sd. Accessed March 2022.
USFWS. 2022. Gray Bat. Environmental Conservation Online System.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329; Accessed March 2022.
USWFS. 2022. Northern Long-eared Bat Occupied 12 Digit HUC Interactive Mapper.
https://fws.maps.arcqis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=18378e3l 684
a4dOc896611a1df14d935; Accessed March 2022.
USFWS. 2022. Rock Gnome Lichen. Environmental Conservation Online System.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3933; Accessed March 2022.
USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation System. 2022.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/; Accessed February 2022.
USFWS Midwest Region. 2015. Northern Long-eared Bat Fact Sheet.
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 9
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

Figures
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 1
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

Mitchell County School (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
r : Project Boundary
110
0q,
�e Rd
y�R
Le,�5
-'
n
C'
226
�o
al
�d
Q
4 r
� S
pm y
8af sa'h 4
Y
*
a�lAv f1aMUk
Pine
0 0.5 1
2
�='G 3�
Rd
'3,
Miles
o
ee�� in9ifsh Rd rIPr
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078
CLearWater
Mitchell County,
Vicinity Map
North Carolina
Figure 1
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Mitchell County School (+/- 14 AC)
•� Y
Legend
r Project Boundary ;
l
eIII!'
01
r
Project Boundary 'T % �� " ,n le
ire
. —�-�- -
r
01
•� .� !
db
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet 1f L f
Drawn by: TJK 11.8. 9' CEC Project# 1078 !�
CLearWater Topographic Map
Mitchell County, USGS 1:24K Quads:
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street p S ruce-Pine and Micaville
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 2

Mitchell County School (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
F------- i
: Project Boundary
Project Boundary
N
L--- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
I it
4�
-------------------------------------------
0 50 100 200
Feet
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078
Mitchell County, CLearWaLer Aerial Imagery Map
NCCGIA (2018)
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street Figure 3
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Mitchell County School (+/- 14 AC)
Project Boundary
L J Project Boundary
Wetland Habitats Terrestrial Habitats
Stream Maintained Emergent F Fallow Field
Scrub Shrub = Riparian Corridor
Contours - 2ft
0 50 100 200
Feet
Drawn by: TJK 3.5.22; ClearWater Project# 1078
Mitchell County, CLearWater Habitat Map
North Carolina AnErrviro5ciemsCompanyj- Figure 4
145 7th Avenue W; Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792

Mitchell County School (+/- 14 AC)
Legend
L_
Project Boundary
Soil
BdA: Bandana sandy loam, 0-3%
slopes, occasionally flooded
EcC: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 8-15% slopes
EcD: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 15-30% slopes, stony
C
EdE: Evard-Cowee complex, central
mountain, 30-50% slopes, stony
C
SaB: Saunook silt loam, 2-8%
slopes
C
ScC: Saunook silt loam, 8-15%
slopes, stony
Ud: Udorthents, loamy
EcC
rF �
EcC
r=
EcD
SaB
SCC
BdA
Project Boundary
�1
�1
BdA
4
Ud '.
i
N h
4<4
SCC
0 50 100 200
Feet:*WIN- ;
Drawn by: TJK 11.8.19; CEC Project# 1078 - —
Mitchell County, OLearWater USDA Soil Map
North Carolina NRCS Web Soil Survey
32 Clayton Street Figure Jr
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
J

Appendix A:
US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC -
Official Species List and NC Natural
Heritage Program Data
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 1
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0013272
Project Name: Mitchell Co. School
February 28, 2022
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)

02/28/2022
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.

02/28/2022
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
■ Migratory Birds
■ Wetlands

02/28/2022
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]

02/28/2022
E
Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0013272
Event Code: None
Project Name: Mitchell Co. School
Project Type: Government / Municipal (Non -Military) Construction
Project Description: Proposed location of new county school.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/(-a)35.96619895,-82,11735675443185,14z
sane t�N. , u
W malivilla
Counties: Mitchell County, North Carolina

02/28/2022
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesi, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Reptiles
NAME
STATUS
Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Similarity of
Population: U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC, TN, VA)
Appearance
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
(Threatened)
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962
Clams
NAME
STATUS
Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana
Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5039

02/28/2022
4
Insects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: littps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Virginia Spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1728
Lichens
NAME STATUS
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3933
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

02/28/2022
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
hPlnw_
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
BREEDING
NAME SEASON
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Breeds
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention elsewhere
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
littps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the

02/28/2022
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
RIVERINE
■ R ST TRH

02/28/2022
IPaC User Contact Information
Name:
Tyson Kurtz
Address:
145 7th Avenue West
City:
Hendersonville
State:
NC
Zip:
28792
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
8286989800

Roy Cooper, Governor
■�■� NC DEPARTMENT OF
■■■� NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■■
March 4, 2022
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
145 7th Avenue West
Hendersonville, NC 28792
RE: Mitchell County School; 1078
Dear ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-17337
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence, the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.ciov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod nev.butlerLncdcr.cLov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Q 121 W. JONES STREET, PALE IGH. NC 27 60 3 • 1GSI MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEiGH. NC 27699
i& 011919,707.9120 • FAX 919,707.9121

E ^
a
\
/ / \
®
z
s a
e
»
\ \ /
FYEL
\
©
\
\
�2
\
\
o U 4
\
2
2 M « <
z % 'z ®
e
2
o
e
m
0
\
®
\
/
y<
D
\ D
i \
2
\
a /
m /
j
�\
±
ƒe
27z
»
.§
/
<
\
\\
E
% u
x
) 2
\
\
\
e a
/
n
\
/
u \
\
- \
2
©
\s
/
e
©
a /
\\
\ia
Oa
®>
6-
\
-C
0
\
�\
c
eo
0
U
a 0 N
o e
�\
/ys\\
=
e
ezo
y=zy®
2 3
\oc
\
(
J/t\/
/\2o
%
\
\2/»\
^°�/
/
\\
/
0)«
/\ 6* 3
u \ ©
2
\
s
ye
a)g
o
»
2
\
\
\
3 /
\
0
\
\
J`
t
2
e
0 E
T
/
} \
a)\
\
.§ Z a
g
f
D
\
u
}
\ /
e
c /
\
sE \
2
e
/2
\
7
/
/
/
\
0
\/
\
o
/
\
s\
m
}
»>
/
/
e e M
/
/
c
\
\ ( x
\
/
\
®
Ln
/
»ƒ
/%
\e
E s
s
«
_o
z
e
(D d
/ /
/
\
\ )
\
/ ƒ
\ \
/
T
Cc
-
z
u
u s e
O E
/
E
u
e
\\
\
e
/
/
\}
g
LO
\
\
/ \
0
\ \ \
\
o
/ O
x
/
/
y
\
/
/® ���
\
©©/
_
-
m\
E
w
\ / z \ \
/
=
»
\
/
\ _
/ /
>
\ \
o = s E
}
d
2
==
u
2
x= g
/
//\
\\
El
§
\
c

O
O
�
U
C/)
>4
4-A
�
O
U
la)
�
U
75
�
�
Clf)
�
W
❑
2
Z
U
Z
-Now,�
� a
�-
-
s
\

C\j
C)
CL
0
00
w
-i
z
0
CO
6
WE
Az
ai
rib
'16
W6
N
C'4
0
!:�l
LO
M
LO
tE
-.4
C4

Appendix B:
Photolog
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, an EnviroScience Company Page 1
Project #1078 Mitchell County School

I Ali �J�i � yJ y��,• �� �1y;
Photo 1. Typical view of fallow field habitat, facing southwest.
r
v,��
Ada
WME
Photo 2. Typical view of riparian corridor, facing south near center of the reach.
r
v,��
Ada
WME
Photo 2. Typical view of riparian corridor, facing south near center of the reach.

Wis
ti Sri N
Ik
1
ri':

Photo 5. Typical view of main stream, facing north near downstream end of reach.
Photo 6. Typical view of substrate in main stream, near downstream end of reach.

Attachment E
Data Forms

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School City/County: Mitchell Sampling Date: 2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County State: NC Sampling Point: UPL
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 35.966291 Long:-82.116785 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: BdA - Bandana sandy loam NWI classification: Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ShallowAquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: UPL
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
None
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2.
FACU species 95 x 4 = 380
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 115 (A) 430 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.74
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Dichanthelium clandestinum
40 Yes
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Solidago canadensis
35 Yes
FACU
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Pycnanthemum virginianum 10 No FAC
4.
Festuca arundinacea
60 Yes
FACU
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Ligustrum sp.
2 No
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Juncus effusus
10 No
FACW
height.
7
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
157 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
79 20% of total cover:
32
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: UPL
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' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 6/4 80 10YR 5/8 20
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School
City/County: Mitchell
Sampling Date:
2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County
State: NC
Sampling Point:
DP-1
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz
Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Slope (%):
2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B
Lat: 35.966028 Long:-82.117128
Datum:
NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: SaB - Saunook Silt Loam
NWI classification:
Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This is a linear wetland in the ripairan buffer of a small tributary.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) X
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
LNG FORM 61 16-4-SG, JUL 201H Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP-1
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 60 x 1 = 60
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 80 x 2 = 160
1. None
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 140 (A) 220 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.57
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Juncus effusus
80 Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Carexlurida
20 No
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Polygonum sagittatium 20 No
4. Carex vulpinoidea
40 Yes
OBL
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
160 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
80 20% of total cover:
32
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1
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' Locz Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 5/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
6-12 10YR 4/1 85 7.5YR 4/4 15 C PL Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox(S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
—Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 1479 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 1479 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School City/County: Mitchell Sampling Date: 2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County State: NC Sampling Point: DP-3
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 35.966282 Long:-82.116669 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: SaB - Saunook silt loam NWI classification: Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
X Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
LNG FORM 61 16-4-SG, JUL 201H Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP-3
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 100 x 1 = 100
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
1.
Alnus serrulata
40 Yes
OBL
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
Rosa sp.
25 Yes
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
Lyonia ligustrina
20 Yes
FACW
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 140 (A) 190 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.36
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
85 =Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
43 20% of total cover:
17
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
15 No
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Carex striata
60 Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Tear tumb 20 No
4.
Andropogon virginicus
5 No
FACU
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Trailing Rubus sp.
10 No
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
110 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
55 20% of total cover:
22
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3
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' Locz Texture Remarks
0-2
7.5YR 3/1
90
7.5YR 3/3 10 C M Muck Distinct redox concentrations
2-14
2.5Y 2.5/1
50
2-14
2.5Y 4/1
45
10YR 3/6 5 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
X 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox(S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Two matrix colors on second soil horizoi
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
—Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 1479 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 1479 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1078 - Mitchell County School City/County: Mitchell Sampling Date: 2/28/2022
Applicant/Owner: Mitchell County State: NC Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): B. Yant, T. Kurtz Section, Township, Range: Snow Creek Township
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 35.966337 Long:-82.116257 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: BdA - Bandana sandy loam NWI classification: Not shown on NWI
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This is a mowed wetland field
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Found gilled snail
LNG FORM 61 16-4-SG, JUL 201H Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP-2
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
None
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 60 x 2 = 120
1.
None
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 80 x 4 = 320
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 180 (A) 480 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.67
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Juncus effusus
50 Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Carexlurida
40 Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Festuca arundinacea 80 Yes FACU
4.
Packera aurea
10 No
FACW
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Scirpus sp.
5 No
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
9
m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
185 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
93 20% of total cover:
37
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
None
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2
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'
Locz
Texture Remarks
1-4
10YR 4/1
90
10YR 3/6 10 C
M
Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
4-10
5Y 3/1
90
10YR 3/6 10 C
M
Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
10-12
5Y 2.5/1
95
2.5Y 4/4 5 C
M
Mucky Loam/Clay Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox(S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
—Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 1479 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 1479 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

Attachment F
Photo Log

:'
�.
s
t
0
a�
3
t
0
a�
.�
i
O
w..
d
.�
d
O
m
N
r
O
O
t
a

Photo 2. Site WA and SA
Photo 3. Site WB

Photo 4. Site WB
Photo S. Site WC

Photo 6. Site WD
Photo 7. Site SB and WD