20020408 Ver 2_Jurisdictional Determination_20150903

P_Qff"If 7 �
August 29, 2015
Ms. Sarah Elizabeth Hair
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
910- 251 -4633
[e-mail]
RE: Piedmont Natural Gas Line Relocation
Preliminary Determination of Wetlands and Waters
Vulcan Materials Company Rockingham Quarry
Richmond County, NC.
Ms. Hair:
-# J
�^
SE N 0 3 2015 rl�
Please find attached a Preliminary Determination of Wetlands and Waters for the proposed route of the
Piedmont Natural Gas Line Relocation at the Vulcan Materials Company Rockingham Quarry located
in Richmond County, NC. The primary watercourse in the regional vicinity of the Study Area is Hitchcock
Creek (NC Stream Index 13- 39 -(10), sub -basin YAD16). The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for this
stream is 03040201. There are two un -named tributaries to Hitchcock Creek within the vicinity of the
Study Area. The site is mapped on the Rockingham, NC (1956, photorevised 1982) quad sheet of the
U.S. Geological Survey. The Study Area is located at 34.9295 N and - 79.8224 W. The Study Areas for
this report consist of approximately 19 acres that occurs on the south side of the main entrance road
into the quarry just before reaching the quarry office.
The original quarry was opened and began operation prior to 1982. Vulcan Materials Company is
presently considering an expansion of the existing quarry pit. An existing Piedmont Natural Gas Line
is located within the area to be mined. As such, it will be located to the other side of the entrance road.
Prior to relocation, this proposed route has been investigated for jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Previous permitting on this site has included NWP 26 for relocation of SR 1117 (Corps Action ID
199306254) authorizing placement of fill in 1.035 acres of waters and revisions to the NWP 26 in 1995
to include all additional impacts of the single and complete project of quarry expansion and rail spur
construction. The cumulative impacts authorized under the revised NWP 26 was 2.61 acres inclusive
of the originally authorized impacts. Previously authorized activities within the Study Area included
road crossongs and sediment basins. Only one of the abandoned sediment basins remain intact. Other
formerly jurisdictional areas have either been previously impacted or have dried out and no longer
exist.
ogre ire -e UPSIG'1 • P-1 Ofi­ B.. 163 • High Sk..1, • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

Although the gas line relocation will be designed to avoid and minimize impacts to known aquatic
resources, it is already known that there will be minimal unavoidable impacts due to the project pur-
pose and need and the location of these resources on the site. The only anticipated impact is the
temporary routing of the gas line through the abandoned sediment basin (Sed -113) and any necessary
clearing of the right of way. Grades will be returned to the pre- exiting elevation and all appropriate
sediment and erosion control methods will be implemented. Since the first step in the preparation of a
design is to know the extent of the aquatic resources and to have them verified, we are submitting this
report to you for your review.
Could you please review the attached information. Please do not hesitat to contact me if you have any
questions or if there is any way I can be of assistance to you. If you would like to review these areas in
the field, we can arrange an on site meeting at your convenience.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
A Fine Line Design
P.O. Box 163
High Shoals NC 28077
704 - 240 -0793
craig.wyant @charter.net
cc: Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Senior Specialist
NCDENR
Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 -1650
919- 807 -6364
j ennifer.burdette @ncdenr.gov
Tony Johnson
Environmental Engineer
Vulcan Materials Company
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 105
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office (704) 547 -7076
Cell (571) 422 -6401
JohnsonTo @VMCMAIL.com
5'c- xeyG�ee / DESIGN • Post Gffi- F.. 163 • High Shoals • I'C • 28077 • (764) 240 -0793

UU1[an
Materials Company
PNG Natural Gas Line Relocation
VMC Rockingham Quarry
Richmond County, North Carolina
Preliminary On -Site Determination
of Wetlands and Waters
(U.S. Army Corps 1987 Methodology
and Subsequent Guidance)
Site investigations conducted
August 14 and 24, 2015
Determination Prepared By:
Craig R. Wyant RLA
A Fine Line Design
Post Office Box 163
High Shoals NC 28077
Phone: [phone]
craig.wyant @charter.net
Prepared For (Applicant):
Tony Johnson
Environmental Engineer
Vulcan Materials Company
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 105
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office 704 -547 -7076
Cell 571- 422 -6401
Fax [phone]
johnsonto @vmcmail.com
Note: All areas indicated as wetland, waters, or jurisdictional in this document are
subject to verification by the U.S. Army Corps
& North Carolina Division of Water Resources.
GESIG • F-I Offi- F— 103 • Fill, Shah • ^L • 2b077 • (7(4) )40 -0793

Preliminary Determination of Wetlands and Waters
Piedmont Natural Gas Line Relocation
Vulcan Materials Company - Mideast Division
Rockingham Quarry Expansion, Richmond County, NC
Site Investigation Conducted August 14 and 24, 2015
This investigation was conducted to research background maps and documentation and to conduct a site
visit of the Study Area for the proposed relocation of a natural gas line by Piedmont Natural Gas within,
and adjacent to, the existing Rockingham Quarry site. This investigation was performed to delineate those
portions of the Study Area which satisfy the definition of juridictional Wetlands or other Waters of the U.S.
and therefore subject to Corps of Engineers or NC Division of Water Resources permitting and regulatory
authority under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. This investigation was conducted to provide
information for use by Vulcan Materials Company in the future planning and decisionmaking relative to
the proposed natural gas line relocation as necessitated by quarry pit expansion. These areas are being
identified for the avoidance and minimization of impacts to identified wetlands and waters and for use in
subsequent permitting.
Waters of the U.S. were previously delineated in 1995 by Marshall Miller Associates of Bluefield, West
Virginia. The proposed gas line route will extend through areas which had been previously identified
utilizing older guidance and previously permitted under a Nationwide 26 permit authorization.
Background and Site Context
The Study Area is located on the south side of the main entrance road into the quarry just before reaching
the quarry office. This area is located south of the existing pit. The site is mapped on the Rockingham, NC
(1956, photorevised 1982) quad sheet of the U.S. Geological Survey.
The original quarry was opened and began operation prior to 1982. Vulcan Materials Company is presently
considering an expansion of the existing quarry. A thirty year mine plan is being prepared to be submitted
for State approvals. A delineation of all wetlands and waters within the entire site has been conducted and
verified in the past.
This determination supplements the boundaries previously delineated and verified and provides additional
boundary delineation for the specific location of the natural gas line relocation. This determination charac-
terizes channels which were previously delineated but not assessed using current methodology.
Previous permitting on this site has included NWP 26 for relocation of SR 1117 (Corps Action ID 199306254)
authorizing placement of fill in 1.035 acres of waters and revisions to the NWP 26 in 1995 to include all
additional impacts of the single and complete project of quarry expansion and rail spur construction. The
cumulative impacts authorized under the revised NWP 26 was 2.61 acres inclusive of the originally autho-
rized impacts.
All of the areas delineated within the proposed gas line relocation have been previously impacted by
activities previously authorized.
0/75/1 w,e YL we / UFS1 1 • Post Office F3 163 0 hq� $kook • �'C • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

�� =
=. ` ,
, \.j a !- '. •�; �i ,
, -�.. ) +rte, \�\ `
`-,�1� !
!` .�� �,
_- J• ' .
r] ; J_ - ' _
.� ;.. 5:�%;�_i y
, �
; \. �
• �,` �
�� �
Gas Line Relocation
VMC Rockingham 2014
Vulcan Materials Company
Mideast Division
Source: US Geologic Survey, Rockingham, NC Quad
Scale: 11 " =2000'
NORTH USGS Project Location Map

Hvdrolovic Features
The primary watercourse in the regional vicinity of the Study Area is Hitchcock Creek (NC Stream Index
13- 39 -(10), sub -basin YAD16). The Hydrologic Unit Code for this stream is 03040201. This channel is
located south of the CSX Railroad. Hitchcock Creek and its tributaries flow into Steeles Mill Pond and
into the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The waters of Hitchcock Creek and its tributaries have been classi-
fied as "C" by the DENR Division of Water Quality in the "Classification and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin ". Therefore the waters of this stream are not
considered to be Water Supply Watershed, Nutrient Sensitive Waters, Trout Waters, or Outstanding Re-
source Waters. The site is not located within a Coastal County.
The USGS Quadrangle maps do not indicate streams or other water bodies within the Study Area bound-
aries.
Te USDA -NRCS Soil Survey indicates that the upper end of intermittent channels occurs at Stream Transect
location S -7A, S -713m, and S -8A. Field indicators have identified one juristictional RPW -Ditch at Transect
S -7B. Other mapped channels have been determined to be ephemeral.
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory indicates that the Study Area does not have and areas mapped
as aquatic resources.
e`Yr, -nwe / DESIWS • P-1 Office @iox 163 • Higk Sk..k • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Name
Index Number
Classification
Class Date
Description
Special Designation
Haw Branch
12- 84 -1 -3
C
08/01/98
From source to North Deep Creek
Haw Branch
13- 17- 32 -1 -1
C
04/01/71
From source to Alligator Branch
Hawkins Branch
13- 25 -30 -4
C
09/01/74
From source to Rocky Creek
Hawkins Creek
12 -21
C;Tr
04/15/63
From source to Yadkin River
Hay Meadow Creek
12 -42 -7
C
04/06/55
From source to Mulberry Creek
Haystack Branch
13- 25 -20 -4
C;HQW
08/03/92
From source to Densons Creek
Hearne Pond
13- 39 -12 -8
WS -III
08/03/92
Entire pond and connecting stream to Falling Creek
Heatherly Creek
12- 72 -14 -5
C
09/01/74
From source to Toms Creek
Hickory Branch
13- 25- 22 -3 -1
C
09/01/74
From source to White Oak Creek
Hickory Flat Branch
12 -19 -5
C;Tr
04/15/63
From source to Buffalo Creek
Hillside Branch
12 -19 -2
C;Tr
04/15/63
From source to Buffalo Creek
Hines Lake
12- 94- 13 -2 -1
C
09/01/74
Entire lake and connecting stream to Sawmill Branch
Hitchcock Creek (McKinney Lake, Ledbetter Lake)
13- 39 -(1)
WS -III
08/03/92
From source to a point 0.5 mile downstream of Richmond County
SR 1442
Hitchcock Creek (Midway Pond, Steeles Mill Pond)
13- 39 -(10)
C
09/01/74
From dam at Roberdel Lake to Pee Dee River
Hitchcock Creek (Roberdel Lake)
13- 39 -(8.5)
WS- III;CA
08/03/92
From a point 0.5 mile downstream of Richmond County SR 1442 to dam at Roberdel Lake (City of
Rockingham water supply intake)
Hog Camp Branch
12- 19 -7 -1
C;Tr
04/15/63
From source to Rockhouse Creek
Thursday, February 09, 2012 Based on Classifications as of 20120208 Page 35 of 88

Source: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, Rockingham, NC Quads (1995)
Gas Line Relocation
VMC Rockingham 2014
Vulcan Materials Company
Mideast Division
Scale: 1 F=2000' 1
NORTH N.W.I. Map

Soils
The soils of the site have been mapped by the Richmond County NRCS and are found on sheet 7 of the
Soils Survey of Richmond County (1999). The following soil series are mapped within the main part of
this site:
AcB Ailey Loamy Sand, 0% to 8% slopes, well drained
AcC Ailey Loamy Sand, 8% to 15% slopes, well drained
TbB Turbeville Sandy Loam, 2% to 8% slopes, well drained
None of the soils which occur on this site have been identified by the NRCS on the local list of Hydric Soils
as hydric soils or as soils series which have hydric soils as the major component. AcB and AcC soils have
been listed as having hydric inclusions in limited areas.
Field indicators of hydric soils were observed only at Sample Plot Sed -113 within an existing and previ-
ously permitted sediment basin and within the OHWM of RPW Ditch S -7B. These areas exhibited field
indicators including gley, low chroma, and other evidence of long term saturation as indicated by the
respective data forms.
DESIGN • Po f O{{i- Box 163 • high Skoa1s • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

Source: USDA -NRCS Soil Survey of Richmond County NC (1999), Sheet 7
Gas Line Relocation
VMC Rockingham 2014 Scale: 1 1"=2000'
Vulcan Materials Company
Mideast Division NORTH USDA -NRCS Soil Survey

U.d. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULI'UXL
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
HYDRIC SOILS LIST
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Section 11 -A -2
December 2001
CRITERIA CODES FOR HYDRIC SOILS:
1. All Histosols except Folists, or
2. Soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are:
a. Somewhat poorly drained with a water table equal to 0.0 foot (ft) from the surface during the growing season, or
b. poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either.
(1) water table equal to 0.0 ft during the growing season if textures are coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within 20 inches (in), or for other soils
(2) water table at less than or equal to 0.5 ft from the surface during the growing season if permeability is equal to or greater than 6.0 in/hour (h)
in all layers within 20 in, or
(3) water table at less than or equal to 1.0 ft from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 ia/h in any layer within 20 in, or
3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season, or
4. Soils that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season.
A: Map units that are hydric soils or have hydric soils as one of the major component
I
I
I I
I
Hvdric soils
criteria
I
I Map symbol and
I component
I Hydric (Local landform
Hydric
I Meets
I Meets I Meets
I Total
I mapunit name
I
I I I
criteria
Isaturatior.Ifloodingjponding
IsaturationJfloodingJponding I
I Acres
I
I
I I
code
criteria
criteria criteria
Icriterialcriterial
I
IJmA:
I
I
I I I
I
I
I I I
I
JOHNSTON MUCKY LOAM,
01JOHNSTON
I Yes Iflood plain 12B3,4,3
I No
I YES
I YES I YES 1
9,747
I TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES,
I
I 1
I
I I 1
1 FREQUENTLY FLOODED
I
I I I
I
I
I I
i
IPcA:
I
I
I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I I
I I I
I I
Idrainageway 1
I PAXVILLE FINE SANDY
IPAXVILLE
I Yes Iflat 1
2B3
1 YES
I NO I NO I
1,071
1 LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT
I
I
I
I 1
I SOILS
I SLOPES
1
I
I
I I I
I I I
I
( I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
B: Map units with inclusions of hydric soils or miscellaneous hydric inclusions
I
I
I
I
Hydric soils criteria I
I
I Map symbol and
I Components
I Hydric
(Local landform
Hydric
I Meets
I Meets I Meets I
Total I
I mapunit name
I
linclusionl I
criteria
IsaturationJfloodingJponding I
Acres I
I
I
code
criteria
Icriterialcriterial
I
I
IAaB:
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I AILEY SAND, MODERATELYIAILEY
I No
I - -- 1
- --
1 - --
I - -- - -- 1
971
1 WET, 0 TO 6 PERCENT
SLOPES
I
I
I I
I
I I I
I
I
I
(POORLY
!
I Yes
I I
Idrainageway 1
2B3
I
I YES
I I I
I NO I NO 1
I
31
1 DRAINED
i
I SOILS
J
I I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
IWET SPOTS
I
I Yes
I I
Idepression 1
2B3
I
I YES
I I I
I NO I NO 1
I
21
J
IAcB:
1
1
I I
I
I 1
1
I AILEY LOAMY SAND,
0 TOIAILEY
I No
I - -- I
- --
I - --
! - -- I - -- 1
23,5361
1 8 PERCENT SLOPES
I
I
(
I
I I
I
I
I
I
(POORLY
I
I Yes
I I
Idrainageway 1
2B3
I
I YES
I I I
I NO I NO 1
I
8311
I
1 DRAINED
I
1 SOILS
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
IWET SPOTS
I
I Yes
I
Idepression J
I I
2B3
I YES
I
I NO I NO 1
f I I
5541
I
Page 1 of 4
NOTE: Some mapunits and included soils listed as hydric soils in this county may not meet the definition of hydric soils and wetlands because the hydrology has been
altered through drainage or other manipulation. Hydric soils in this county cannot be fanned under natural conditions without removing woody vegetation or hydrology
manipulation

U-i. DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC;UL l URL
Technical Guide
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
Section H -A -2
December 2001
HYDRIC SOILS LIST
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
B: Map units with inclusions
of hydric
soils or miscellaneous hydric inclusions
1
I
I
I I Hydric soils criteria
I 1
I Map symbol and
I Components
I Hydric
(Local landforml Hydric I
Meets
I Meets
I Meets I Total I
I mapunit name
1
Ilnclusionl I criteria
Isaturationlfloodinglponding
I Acres I
code
j criteria
Icriterialcrterial
AcC:
I AILEY LOAMY SAND, 8 TOIAILEY
I NO
I - -- I - -- I
- --
I - --
I - -- 1 37,0131
1 15 PERCENT SLOPES
{
I
1 I I
I
( I
I
I
IPOORLY
i
1 Yes
I I I
Idrainageway
YES
I
NO
I I I
NO 1,3061
I DRAINED
12B3 I
1
1 1
I
1 SOILS
IAgC:
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
AILEY GRAVELLY LOAMY
JAILEY
1 No
1 - --
1 - -- I
- --
I - --
1 - --
1 1,0481
SAND, 8 TO 15 PERCENT(
I
I
1
(
I
1
1
1 SLOPES
1
1
I
1 I
1
1
1
I
POORLY
I Yes
Idrainageway
1 2B3 I
YES
I NO
I NO
1 371
I
I
I
I
1 SOILS
1
1AgD.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 AILEY GRAVELLY LOAMY
JAILEY
I No
I - --
I --
- -- 1
- --
1 - --
1 1,5091
1 SAND, 15 TO 25
1
i
1
1
1
1
I
1
PERCENT SLOPES
I
I
I
I J
I
I
I
I
1
IPOORLY
1 I Yes
Idrainageway
1 2B3 I
YES I
NO
I NO
1 531
I DRAINED
I
I
SOILS
I I
]
AuB:
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
AILEY -URBAN LAND
1
No
1 - --
- --
- --
- --
--- 1 9591
COMPLEX, 0 TO 6
IAILEY
1 1
1
1
PERCENT SLOPES
I 1
URBAN LAND I
1 1
No
I
I - --
I
I I
1 - -- I
I I
I
- -- {
I
- -- 1
-- 8521
I
IPOORLY I
Yes
ldrainageway
1 2B3 I
i
YES I
I
NO I
NO 641
1
1 DRAINED
I I
I
1
1
1 SOILS
I
1
IWET SPOTS I
I I
Yes
1
Idepression
I 1
I I
1 2B3 I
1
YES 1
1
I
NO 1
I
NO 1 431
1
AuC:
I I
I I
I
I
I
i
AILEY -URBAN LAND
IAILEY 1
No
1 - -- -
- -- 1
- -- {
- --
- -- I 2341
COMPLEX, 8 TO 15
PERCENT SLOPES
1 1
I I I
I
I
I
TURBAN LAND 1 No
1 ---
- -- 1
- -- 1
--- 1
- -- 1
2081
IPOORLY I
Yes
(depression I
2B3 I
YES 1
NO I
NO 1
161
1 DRAINED
I
SOILS
1
-aC:
I I
I
1
I
I
!
I
I
1
I
I
CANDOR AND WAKULLA
ICANDOR I
No
I - -- 1
- -- 1
- -- I
- -- I
- -- 1
11,3181
SOILS, 8 TO 15
PERCENT SLOPES
I 1
I
I
I
I
I
IWAKULLA I No
1 --- 1
--- 1
- -- 1
- -- 1
- -- 1
9,0551
]POORLY
Yes
depression 1 2133
YES I
NO I
NO 1
6791
DRAINED
SOILS 1
1 I
Page 2 of 4
NOTE: Some mapunits and included soils listed as hydric soils in this county may not meet the definition of hydnc soils and wetlands because the hydrology has been
altered through drainage or other manipulation. Hydric soils in this county cannot be farmed under natural conditions without removing woody vegetation or hydrology
manipulation

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULfURL Technical Guide
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Section II -A -2
��. December 2001
HYDRIC SOILS LIST
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
B: Map units with inclusions of hydric soils or miscellaneous hydric inclusions
DRAINED 1 I I I
SOILS I I I I
I I I I I
HsA: 1 I ( I I
HORNSBORO SILT LOAM, 01HORNSBOR0 I No I - -- - --
TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES I I I
I I I I I
(POORLY I Yes Idepression, 1 2133 1 YES
I DRAINED I I flood plain I I
1 SOILS I I I I
I I I I I
NoA: I I I I
- I 1,544
I I
NO I NO I 54
NORFOLK LOAMY SAND, 0
I I I Hydric
soils criteria I
Map symbol and
I Components I Hydric (Local landform Hydric
I meets I Meets I Meets I Total I
mapunit name
j IInclusionl I criteria
Isaturationifloodinglponding I Acres I
I
i 1 code
criteria criterialcriteria
IChA:
I
I I I i I
I CHEWACLA LOAM, O TO 2
ICHEWACLA I No I - -- I - --
I --- I --- I --- 1 10.2991
1 PERCENT SLOPES,
1
I
FREQUENTLY FLOODED
I I I
I I I I
NORFOLK LOAMY SAND, 2 INORFOLK
IPOORLY I Yes !depression 12B3
I YES I NO I NO I 3631
DRAINED 1 I I I
SOILS I I I I
I I I I I
HsA: 1 I ( I I
HORNSBORO SILT LOAM, 01HORNSBOR0 I No I - -- - --
TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES I I I
I I I I I
(POORLY I Yes Idepression, 1 2133 1 YES
I DRAINED I I flood plain I I
1 SOILS I I I I
I I I I I
NoA: I I I I
- I 1,544
I I
NO I NO I 54
NORFOLK LOAMY SAND, 0
INORFOLK
I No
I - --
1 - --
I - -- I - -- - -- I 5071
TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES
I
I
I
I
I I I I
i I
IWET
IWET SPOTS
I Yes
Idepression
1 2B3
I YES I NO I NO 1 121
NoB: I
I
I
I
I I I I I
NORFOLK LOAMY SAND, 2 INORFOLK
I No
I - --
1 - --
I --- I - -- - -- 1 1,7021
TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES I
2B3
I
I
I I I I
I
IWET
SPOTS
I
I Yes
I
Idepression
i
1 2B3
I I I I I
I YES I NO I NO 1 401
PeA: I
I
I I I I I
PEAWICK FINE SANDY PPEAWICK
I No
I - --
1 - --
I - -- I - -- I - -- I 2,0501
LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT I
I
I
I
I I I I I
SLOPES 1
I
I I I I I
IWET
SPOTS
I Yes
I
Idepression
I
1 2B3
I
1 YES I NO I NO 1 481
I I I I I
(
PeB:
PEAWICK FINE SANDY
PEAWICK
No
- --
i - --
I - -- I - -- I --- 1 5,5241
LOAM, 2 TO 6 PERCENT
SLOPES 1
I
I
I
' I
IWET
SPOTS
I Yes
Idepression
1 2B3
YES 1 NO I NO 1 1301
PfA: I
I
I
I
I 1 I I I
PEAWICK SILT LOAM, 0 PPEAWICK
I No
( - --
( - --
I - -- 1 --- ( --- I 3141
TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES, I
I
I
I
I I I I
RARELY FLOODED I
I
I
I I I I I
I IPOORLY
I Yes ldrainageway 1
2B3
I
DRAINED
1 I
i 1
SOILS
1 I 1
i I
IWET
SPOTS
I I I
I Yes Idepression 1
2B3
I I
1PoA: I
I I I
I I I
I PELION LOAMY SAND, 0 IPELION
I No
- --
I TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES 1
I
I I
IWET
I I
SPOTS
I I
I Yes !depression 1
I I I
2B3
I I I I
YES I NO I NO 1 71
1 YES I NO I NO I 7I
I I I I I
I
I --- I --- - -- I 2,2671
I I I I I
1 YES I NO I NO 1 531
i I I I I
Page 3 of 4
NOTE: Some mapunits and included soils fisted as hydric soils in this county may not meet the definition of hydric soils and wetlands because the hydrology has been
altered through drainage or other manipulation. Hydric soils in this county cannot be farmed under natural conditions without removing woody vegetation or hydrology
manipulation

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL'FURL
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
HYDRIC SOILS LIST
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
B: Map units with inclusions of hydric soils or miscellaneous hydric inclusions
Technical Guide
Section 1I -A -2
December 2001
I
I
I
Hydric soils criteria
I Map symbol and
I Components
I Hydric
(Local landformj
Hydric
I Meets
I Meets I Meets
Total I
I mapunit name
I
Iinclusionl
I
criteria
Isaturationlfloodinglponding
I
Acres I
I
code
I criteria
criteria criteria]
1
1POB:
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I PELION LOAMY SAND, 2
IPELION
I No
I - -- i
- --
- --
I - -- - -- 1
6,9261
1 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES
I
I I
I I
I
I
IPOORLY
I
I Yes
I I
Idrainageway 12B3
I
I YES
I I I
I NO I NO 1
i
2441
I
1 DRAINED
I
I SOILS
I
I
I
I I
I
I
IWET SPOTS
I
I Yes
I I
Idepression 1
2B3
I
I YES
! I I
I NO I NO 1
I
'631
I
IPoC:
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I I
I
I PELION LOAMY SAND, 8
IPELION
I No
1 - -- (
- --
I ' --
I - -- I - -- 1
2,1101
1 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES
I
I
1
I
I
IPOORLY
I Yes
Idepression 1
2B3
I YES
I NO
I NO 1
501
1
1 DRAINED
I I
I
I I
I
1
1 SOILS
I
IRvA:
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I RIVERVIEW LOAM, 0 TO 21RIVERVIEW
I No
I - -- I
- --
1 - --
- --
I - -- 1
1,7711
1 PERCENT SLOPES,
I
I
I
I
I I
I
OCCASIONALLY FLOODED
I
I
( I
I I
I
I
IPOORLY
I Yes
Idrainageway 1
2B3
I YES
I NO I NO 1
591
I
1 DRAINED
I I
I
I I
SOILS
I I
I
I
I
I
JWCB:
I
I
I
1
I I
I I
I I
I I
i 1
I I
I
I
WAKULLA AND CANDOR
IWAKULLA
1 No
I - -- I
- --
I - -- I
" -- I - -- 1
32,8001
SOILS, 0 TO 8 PERCENTI
I
1 1
I I
SLOPES
I
I
ICANDOR
I No
I I
I - -- I
- --
I
I - -- I
I I
- -- I - -- 1
1
29,1561
I
1
IWET SPOTS
I
1
I Yes
I
1 1
Idepression 1
I I
2B3
1 1
I YES I
I I
1 1
NO I NO 1
I I
I
.1,4581
I
Page a of 4
NOTE: Some mapunits and included soils listed as hydric soils in this county may not meet the definition of hydric soils and wetlands because the hydrology has been
altered through drainage or other manipulation. Hydric soils in this county cannot be farmed under natural conditions without removing woody vegetation or hydrology
manipulation

Vegetation
The majority of the Study Areas is cleared of woody vegetation and coniiits of maintained powerline right -
of -way. These open rights -of -way are dominated by upland grasses and forbs. Forested areas occur gener-
ally along the northern side of the Study Area near the slope on the southern side of the quarry entrance
road. Upland forest covers the greatest extent of the forested portions of the Study Areas with predomi-
nantly upland Oak - Hickory communities mixed with several stands of planted Pine. One small area in the
western part of the Study Area has been cleared and graded for an access drive and new sediment basin.
Hydrophytic vegetation in the form of Black Willow, Sweet Gums, Red Maples, and other wetland species
occur within the the older sediment basin at Sample Plot Sed -1B. The RPW Ditch at Transect S -7B con-
sists of herbaceous hydrophytic species.
Most of the areas exhibiting hydrophytic vegetation on the site also exhibit the necessary hydric soils or
wetland hydrology. Those areas of hydrophytic vegetation which also exhibited indicators of hydric soils
and wetland hydrology have been considered jurisdictional and occur within the OHWM of channels or
the delineated wetland areas.
The Study Areas are comprised of primarily four vegetation community types:
Hvdronhvtic Forested Wetland
This community consists of a younger canopy of mixed hardwood tree species and a subcanopy and
herbaceous understory consisting primarily of shrubs and saplings. Nearly all dominant species within all
strata of this community are FAC, FACW, or OBL within delineated wetland. Other portions of the site
which have this community type are dominated by primarily FAC species with various distributions of
FACW or FACU throughout the community.
Hvdronhvtic Onen Areas
This community consists almost entirely of open cleared herbaceous grasses and forbs. Canopy or sub-
canopy species are sparsely represented within this community and consist of scattered individuals. Nearly
all dominant species within all strata of this community are FAC, FACW, or OBL within delineated wet-
land. Other portions of the site which have this community type are dominated by primarily FAC species
with various distributions of FACW or FACU throughout the community.This community occurs within
rights of way and other cleared portions of the site.
Non - Hvdronhvtic Forested Upland
This community consists of a well established canopy of mixed hardwoods or pine and a well represented
subcanopy and herbaceous understory. The dominant species within all strata are primarily FAC, FACU, or
UPL. Other portions of the site which have this community type are dominated by primarily FAC species
with various distributions of FACW or FACU throughout the community.
This community is typically found on ridgetops and sidelopes. Some areas which have been timbered
consist of younger successional upland species approximately ten years of age.
Non - Hvdronhvtic Onen /Successional Areas
This community consists almost entirely of open cleared herbaceous grasses and forbs. Canopy or sub-
canopy species are sparsely represented within this community and consist of scattered individuals. The
dominant species observed within this community consist of FAC, FACU, or UPL species of grasses and
herbs typically associated with upland open successional land or planted species. This community occurs
within rights of way, on berms, and other cleared or developed upland portions of the site.
When the composition of vegetation within an area is dominated by species which are listed as FAC +,
FACW, or OBL the community is considered to by hydrophytic. The pattern of distribution of species on
this site corresponded closely with topographic setting, hydrologic factors, and soils characteristics. Pro-
nounced hydrophytic communities occurred at lower elevations in areas with indications of hydric soils.
C�TweY'iyie / DESIGN • Post Office Box 163 • Hlgf SLoIs • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

Wetland Determination Methodology
Those portions of the site which have been identified as jurisdictional under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act include waters and wetland areas which
satisfy the definition of a wetland in the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87- I ", January 1987, U.S. Army Corps Environmental Laboratory and subsequent Corps and
DWR guidance. Methodology used in this study include the use of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wet-
land Delineation Manual, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, November 2010,
U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. EPA guidance for determination of Significant Nexus, and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams
and Their Origins Version 4.11 Effective Date: September 1, 2010. Jurisdiction may potentially be
identified as Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNW), Perennial Streams, Relatively Permanent Waters
(Intermittent RPW), Seasonal Intermittent RPW, Intermittent Non -RPW, Impoundments, Adjacent
Wetlands, and Abutting Wetlands. Ephemeral Channels and Isolated Waters are typically not jurisdic-
tional without a Significnt Nexus Determination.
A routine on -site determination method utilizing the multi - parameter approach was implemented
to identify the upper wetland boundary of all areas which satisfy the three parameters as described in the
manual:
1. Hydrophytic Vegetation
2. Hydric Soils
3. Wetland Hydrology
The following methodology was utilized to make the determination:
1. Preliminary data gathering and synthesis.
Data sources include:
USGS Quadrangle Maps
National Wetlands Inventory Maps
USDA -NRCS Soil Survey for Richmond County
Richmond County Flood Data
Richmond County topography & tax parcel data
Richmond County aerial photography
Applicant provided plat map documents
2. Selection of Routine on -site Determination Method
3. Identification of Plant Community Types
The site was divided into its major vegetation communities for charactization. Those portions of
the site which exhibited characteristic hydrophytic vegetation were reviewed for presence of hydric
soils and evidence of wetland hydrology.
4. Transects were established approximately perpendicular to the major water courses for location of
sample observation points.
5. Observation points were located along transects within each major vegetation community to observe
and record the characteristics of hydrophytic vegetaion, hydric soils and wetland hydrology.
Each sample observation point (sample plot) consisted of one or more 18 -24" deep test pits dug
with a spade to characterize soils and hydrology, and a thirty foot radius area to characterize tree and
woody vine species; a fifteen foot radius area to characterize a representative sample of the sapling,
shrub and woody vine species; and a five foot radius to document herbaceous plant species. All
observed data was recorded on an appropriate Data Form as well as notation of Atypical Conditions
C(�ne Yin e / DESIGN • Post Office B.. 163 • Hi96 S6oa1, • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

and Normal Environmental Conditions. A determination was made whether or not the sample
plot was a wetland based upon available and observed data. Sample plots are identified in the
field with numbered flourescent orange surveyor's flagging.
When a wetland/non- wetland determination had been made at all sample plots, an upper
wetland boundary was assumed to occur between wetland plots and non - wetland plots. Numer-
ous additional test pits were dug along each transect to identify the boundary location. Once
boundaries had been located along each transect, the characteristics at this point were utilized to
determine the boundary location between transects until the entire site had been divided into
wetland and non - wetland areas. This boundary was then confirmed and adjusted through the use
of visual observation and additional test pits on either side of the line. Soil profiles were ob-
served using a Dutch auger and a one inch tube sampler. Estimated wetland boundaries were
measured in the field and sketched on a topographic map of the site.
All prelininary wetland boundaries have been marked in the field with delineated with num-
bered pink and black striped surveyors flagging spaced at regular intervals. Each flag has been
assigned a sequential number.
Tributary channels on the site were demarcated and recorded by walking the length of the
channel. Stations were established at regular intervals along the channel length for observation,
photography and measurement. Representative transect stations were marked in the field with la-
belled numbered flourescent orange flagging. Measurements which were taken include: top width,
bottom width, depth of channel (left bank and right bank), width and depth of water, and notation if
flow was occurring at the observation point. A stream evaluation form for the USACE and NCDWR
was prepared for a typical portion of the channel to observe and record channel characteristics and
any special features associated with the chanel. Photographs were taken along the length of each
channel. The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of both sides of each jurisdictional channel has
been delineated with numbered pink and black striped surveyors flagging spaced at regular inter-
vals. Each flag has been assigned a sequential number. The location of all transects and channels
were noted on a topographic base map of the site.
Note: All areas indicated as wetland or jurisdictional in this document are subject to
verification by the U.S. Army Corps & North Carolina Division of Water Resources.
CQI�DA_'w -e Z e7te / USIGN • Post Office dox 163 • h9k Sk-k • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

References
Site Base Topography and Boundary provided by Vulcan Materials Company
Richmond Geographic Information System (GIS)
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual TR YR -87 -1, 1987, U.S. Army Corps
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and
Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, November 2010
U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. EPA guidance for determination of Significant Nexus.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Peren-
nial Streams and Their Origins Version 4.11 Effective Date: September 1, 2010.
N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
User Manual, Prepared by the N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team
Version 4.1. October 2010
USGS 7 -1/2 minute Rockingham, NC Quad maps
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, Rockingham, NC Quad maps, 1991
Classifications & Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin- PeeDee River
Basin, NCDENR, Raleigh, North Carolina
USDA - PLANTS Database, Wetland Indicator Status
National List of Plant Species Which Occur in Wetlands, 1988, US FWS
Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, Sheets 6 and 11, September 1988, USDA NRCS (SCS)
Hydric Soils of the United States, 1990, NTCHS / SCS
Munsell Soil Color Charts, 2000, Kollmorgen Corporation.
Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas, June 1987, Albert E. Radford.
Aquatic andWetland Plants of the Southeastern United States,Monocotyledons, 1979, Godfrey and
Wooten
Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States, Dicotolyledons, 198 1, Godfrey and
Wooten
Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs, 1972, George A. Petrides
Field Guide to the Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes of the U.S., 1980, Edward Knobel
Fruit and Twig Key to Trees and Shrubs, 1946, William M. Harlow
Wildflowers of North America, 1984, Frank D. Venning
Manual of the Grasses of the United States (two volumes), 1950 & 1971, Hitchcock.
�z -ems r'y'e / DESIGN • Post Offs- dox 163 • Hlgi SLA • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

Summary of Findings
Those portions of the site which exhibit the characteristics and field indicators of wetlands and waters
and are expected to be considered jurisdictional include those areas within the Ordinary High Water Mark
of channels of perennial or intermittent tributaries or jurisdictional ditches, and those areas within ponded
areas and linear depressions which exhibit all three characteristics of wetlands including hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of wetland hydrology. A summary of the portions of the Study Area
which exhibit these characteristics have been delineated or field verified and consist of the following:
Summary of Wetlands /Sediment Basin,
Sample Plot
Location
Description
Area
Sed -1A
Upland
N/A
Sed -1B
Jurisdictional Sediment Basin ±0.1 ac.
Summary of
Channels
Transect
±Drainaee
Appear on
Jurisdictional
USACE
NCDWR
Location
Area
Quad/Soils
Determination
Score
Score
Length
S -7B
12.0 ac.
No/No
RPW Ditch
39
19.75
±160 if
S -7A
10.4 ac.
No/No
Non -RPW
43
9.25
N/A
S -8A
10.4 ac.
No/No
Non -RPW
45
12.0
N/A
Note: All areas indicated as wetland or jurisdictional in this document are subject to
verification by the U.S. Army Corps & North Carolina Division of Water Resources.
DESIGN • Post Office F.. 163 • High Shoals • NC • 28077 • (704) 240 -0793
l

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Tonv Johnson
Vulcan Materials Comoany
, representing
, hereby certify that I have
authorized Craig R. Wyant RLA of A Fine Line Design to act on my behalf and take all
actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for wetlands
determination, permitting and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this Request for Jurisdictional
Determination and associated Permit Applications is true and accurate to the best of our
knowledge.
Applicant's signature en �- ature
October 31. 2013 October 31. 2013
Date Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address:
City, State:
County:
Directions:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 1j ( VpZa Aj
145 -A0Q ?%CdaU y- 1�15�t7�- 1o13 \1r1�o►�na�)
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: \l \Ar r, \ �_ty r s
Mailing Address: \aQ�--> V)p� Ce,n}cr nr (%; rW, mVv-M � Ac-
Telephone Number: - -VW-.A tin mac, f. ''WA - 5 L49 . 'j_t)l la._ 35 aL% a
Electronic Mail Address': ' 0h;,-s (a y ffy- a.l , ex rV,
Select one:
F71 am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant2
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: V �-k\ pan
Mailing Address: \Q00 VL- ha.r\ far
�� r rq--�, ft h® rr. k. - '�15 aya
Telephone Number: ','� -,tom . r1 y y _ app
Electronic Mail Address3:
Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
' if available
' Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 if available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
VIII III II I II 111111 IIII I I I III I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIII� II II�1111 I III I I III I I I I III I I IIII I II III I III IIII VIII III 1111111111 1111111 11 IIIIIIIIII III
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property /properties identified herein,
do 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
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
A, ,O pl.0 W, P -Qfl a
Property Owner (please print) Date
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
F] I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminane. JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property /project area for the presence or
absence of WOUS5 and provide an annroved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
F] I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property /project
area and provide an avvroved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
1 am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/project area and provide an anoroved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT /USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
S Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. ALL REQUESTS
F7Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
❑✓ Size of Property or Project Area 80 acre study area acres
7 I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
Z Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form {'.,
Project Coordinates: 34.9396 Latitude 78.8199 Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
✓7 Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
oAerial Photography of the project area
a USGS Topographic Map
F7 Soil Survey Map
0 Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08 -02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013
Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable)7:
Wetlands:
Wetland Data Sheets$
Tributaries:
USACE Assessment Forms
W1Upland Data Sheets ✓0 Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
✓0 Landscape Photos, if taken
W-1 Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
■ All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
ZProject Coordinates: 34.9396 Latitude 78.8199 Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
✓z Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
Aerial Photography of the project area
Z USGS Topographic Map
7 Soil Survey Map
✓7 Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland hiventory Map, Proposed Site Plan,
previous delineation maps)
7 1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
http: / /www.usace.armv.miI/ Missions/ CivilWorks/ ReaulatorvProRramandPermits /ree suop.asm
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
http: / /oortal.ncdenr.oriz /c /document library /aet file7uuid= 76f3c58b -dab8- 4960- ba43- 45b7faf06f4c &arouoid =38364 and,
http: / /www.saw.usace.armv.mil/ Portals/ 59 /docs /reRulatorv/oublicnotices /2013 /NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318,odf
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland /community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

Jurisdictional Determination Request
r
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
�/ USACE Assessment Forms
❑✓ Upland Data Sheets z Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑✓ Landscape Photos, if taken
0✓ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
aApproved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Forms) ")
QMap(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland /community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 7 '

_ � � %� 1 -yam � r .. -'��w^ rI" 4 ,� P�� �._� •� I ,� F
rl AF
A6
kk
4a s
' 1 � ~rye• � t �:�
.r
- Y
1
}
y: •
sr
t� s :z ,
f
s
Gas Line
Relocation
Site Aerial Photo
(2013 - Google Images)
VMC Rockingham Quarry
Richmond County, NC
NORTH
Scale F=200'
v
&I

Source: Google Earth Images, February 8, 2013
Proposed Gas Line Relocation
VMC Rockingham Quarry
Wetland Delineation Flagging
V =100, North August 28, 2015

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): August 28, 2015
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: VMC Rockingham - Wetlands Sed -113,
Streams RPW Ditch S -713
State: NC County/parish/borough: Richmond City: Rockingham
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.9249° N, Long. 79.8226°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Long Creek (Branch) to Hitchcock Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Hitchcock Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Yadkin (HU# 03040201)
R Check if map /diagram of review area and /or potential jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request.
El Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
0 Office (Desk) Determination. Date: August 14, 2015
Field Determination. Date(s): August 14 -24, 2015
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There kr io "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 160 linear feet: 10 to 30 width (ft) and /or (ponds) acres.
Wetlands: 0.1 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and /or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
'' For purposes ofthis form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section I11.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it
helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -
round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with
perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts
and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus
between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable
water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request
is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section
III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that
tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 12 acres
Drainage area: 12 acres
Average annual rainfall: 47 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationshin with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TN W5: UT flows to Hitchcock Creek .
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributarv_ Characteristics (check all that a_n_oly_ ):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man - altered). Explain: Ditch through powerline right of way.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 10 -30 feet
Average depth: 5 feet
Average side slopes: �,_J-
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type /% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition /stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Some erosion.
Presence of run /riffle /pool complexes. Explain: Moderate run /riffle /pool complexes.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0 -2 %
(c) Elow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area /year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings: Depth of ditch has been dug below level of groundwater.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed: hydric soil indicators.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑ shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ sediment deposition
® water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
rl High Tide Line indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings /characteristics
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
® the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ the presence of wrack line
❑ sediment sorting
❑ scour
® multiple observed or predicted flow events
® abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water color is clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish /spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Weak presence of crayfish and macrobenthos.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.1 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Abandoned sediment basin.
Wetland quality. Explain: Average quality small man -made wetland.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: Wetland is connect to downstream RPW Ditch.
Surface flow is: Discrete
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: es. Explain findings: Wetland is indirectly hydrologicaly connect to an RPW Ditch.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
® Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: Separated by upland man -made chek dam.
(d) Proximitv (Relationship` to TNW
Project wetlands are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 500 -year or greater floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: This wetland area exhibited drainage patterns, inundation to 3 inches, water - stained
leaves, oxidized root channels in upper 12 inches of the soil profile, and saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil
profile .
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Runoff from road surface.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): 100 foot width medium aged mixed forest.
® Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain: Medium aged mixed forest.
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish /spawn areas. Explain findings:Weedy areas along edges of open water provide beeding sites.
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Wildlife cover and breeding area.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 1
Approximately ( 0.1 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directiv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: habitat, flood storage, pollutant
removal.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and /or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: .
2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS /WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Perennial Stream exhibited strong flow, average ordinary high water widths of 15 -18 feet, moderate
presence of crayfish and macrobenthos, and substrate consisting of silt to small boulders.
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Intermittent stream S2 flows directly into S 1 and has some habitat and pollutant removal quality .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: Approximately 160 linear feet 10 -30 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
El Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
rl Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands 1 and 2 are hydrologicaly connect to a perennial stream.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 2 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.1 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section II1.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
$See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps /EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and /or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes /ponds: acres.
[] Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant /consultant:
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Rockingham, North Carolina, dated 1982.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Richmond County, North Carolina, Sheet No. 7, dated 1999.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Rockingham, North Carolina, dated 1995.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Google Images 2013.
or ® Other (Name & Date):On -site field photographs.
® Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response Ietter:Corps Action ID 200200858, 28 may 2002.
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
l

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/site: VMC Rockingham Gas Line City/County:Richmond County, NC Sampling Date: 8 -14 -15
Applicant/Owner: Vulcan Materials Company State: NC Sampling Point: Sed -IA
Investigator(s): Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope ( %): 15 -35%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LLR P / MLRA 133ALat: 34.9295 Long: - 79.8224 Datum:
Soil Map unit Name. AcC Ailey Loamy Sand, 8 -15% slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation NO , Soil NO or Hydrology NO significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , soil NO or Hydrology NO 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
No Is the Sampled Area
No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
No X _
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired:
check all that aDDIV)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
— High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
— Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (114) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (69)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): N/A
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >16"
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >16" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Da a (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspec ions), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Sed -1A
Woody vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Vitis rotundifolia 5 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
_5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree
Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species 8
1.
Plnus taeda
75
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2_
Quercus stellata
15
N
UPL
Total Number of Dominant 16
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species 50
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
6.
90
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
OBL species x 1 =
Saolina Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Pinus taeda
25
Y
FAC
FACW species x 2 =
2.
Quercus t3hellos
10
Y
FACW
FAC species x 3 =
3.
Prunus serotina
10
Y
FACU
FACU species x 4 =
4.
Quercus alba
5
Y
FACU
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
50
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1.
Rhus tvnhma
5
Y
UPL
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
2.
Li uldambar styraclflua
5
Y
FAC
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
Ru us argutus
5
Y
FAC
4.
Flyperlcum denslflorum
5
Y
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
20
=Total Cover
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1.
Lonicera iaponica
15
Y
FACU
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2.
Diaitarla sant?ulnalls
15
Y
FACL
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3.
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
5
Y
FACL
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4.
Lhamaeerista fasciculata
5
y_ FALL
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5.
solidavo altissimn
5
_ Y
FACT :
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Vitis rotundifolia
5
Y
FAC
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
50
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Woody vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Vitis rotundifolia 5 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
_5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: Sed -1A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
(inches)
Color (moist) %
0 -2
2.5 Y 5/3 100
2 -4
5 YR 4/6 100
12
ROCK
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Twe' Loc`
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Texture Remarks
sandy loam
sandy loam
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

Sediment Basin IA Upland View of Test Pit
Sediment Basin 1 A Upland View of Vegetation Community
VMC Rockingham 2015
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC
Sediment Basin IA
Upland
C'�1,1-:il;nr,Y(pr / LVSIGI, • r"'I (Ti« [ "- ]G3, 1 r') 1, . -d" �-G 28G77 • (7(,4) 24( -6793

Sediment Basin 1 A Upland View of Vegetation Community
Sediment Basin 1 A Upland View of Vegetation Community
VMC Rockingham 2015 Sediment Basin IA
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC Upland
CS C 'GneYc*,jte / DESIGN • Post Office Dox 163, 11 igh A..Ik, NC 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

Sediment Basin 1 A Upland View of Vegetation Community
Sediment Basin I Upland View of Vegetation Community
VMC Rockingham 2015
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC
c4 % % ?cu rer / LLSIG,I, • Lost ( ffi, E,ex IG3,
Sediment Basin IA
Upland
ig1, �oa s, �G 75(77 • WA) )4('-( T) 3

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/site: VMC Rockingham Gas Line City/County:Richmond Countv, NC sampling Date: 8 -14 -15
Applicant/Owner: Vulcan Materials Company State: NC Sampling Point: Sed -IB
Investigator(s): Craig R. Wyant RLA /SWS Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope m: 15 -35%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LLR P / MLRA 133A Lat: 34.9294 Long: - 79.8?76 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: ACC Alley Loamy Sand, 8 -15% slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No , Soil No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation No , Soil No or Hydrology No 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 aaoly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
X High Water Table (A2)
_ Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U)
X Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131)
_X Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
X Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
X Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): N/A
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 6"
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Sample plot occurs in a previously permitted sediment basin that was constructed in
1995. It is downstream of a Non -RPW channel and upstream of a man -made RPW ditch
that flows through a powerline right -of -way.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Sed -1B
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species 12
1. SahX nigra
25
Y OBI-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
20
Y FAC
Quercus phellos
15
Y FACW
Total Number of Dominant 12
3 .
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. Pinus taeda
10
N FAC
5. Ulmus alata
10
N FACL
Percent of Dominant Species 100
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
6.
80
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50°x6 of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MultiDiv bv:
Saolino Stratum (Plot size: )
OBL species x 1 =
1. SahX nigra
25
Y OBL
FACW species x 2 =
2. Acer rubrum
15
Y FAC
FAC species x 3 =
3. Quercus phellos
10
Y FACW
FACU species x 4 =
4. Pinus taeda
10
Y FAC
UPL species x 5 =
5.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
60
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Rubus areutus
5
Y FAC
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
2•
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
5
= Total Cover
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1. Boehmerla c0ndrica
30
Y FACW
Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2. WoodWardia areolata
20
Y OBI_,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3. Juncus effusus
15
Y OBL
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4..MikininCc.,gn Qns
_ 15
y FAC'V/ Shrub -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. (iqmiincla rPplic
-5
N nRT,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. Osmunda cinnamomea
5
N FACVI Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
90
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
X
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: Sed-1B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type' Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -1
7.5 YR 4/2
75 7.5 YR 4/4 25
loam
1 -4
7.5 YR 3/2
75 7.5 YR 4/4 25
sandy loam
4 -12 2.5 YR 5/2 100
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
_ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
sand
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
X Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153G, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Sample plot occurs in a previously permitted sediment basin that was constructed in
1995. It is downstream of a Non -RPW channel and upstream of a man -made RPW ditch
that flows through a powerline right -of -way.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

Sediment Basin 1 B View of Test Pit
Sediment Basin 1 B View of Soil Profile
VMC Rockingham 2015
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC
r���Tne -Yiier / PFSIGC • Past Cffi- b— 163,
Sediment Basin 1B
Jurisdictional
h9k A..k, NC 28677 • (764) 246 -0793

Sediment Basin 1 B View of Vegetation Community
Sediment Basin 1B View of Vegetation Community
VMC Rockingham 2015 Sediment Basin 1B
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC Jurisdictional
Lt�1re / [ASIGN • P-1 Office Box 163, 1 iqh A, "J'. r-G 25077 • (704) 240 -0793

Sediment Basin 1B View of Vegetation Community
Sediment Basin 1 B View of Vegetation Community
VMC Rockingham 2015
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC
(��IaIeeYe,)ie / USIGI` • Post (Afi- b— 163,
Sediment Basin 1 B
Jurisdictional
Iiiq6 A—l" 11C J5(77 (7( -4) 240.0793

Sediment Basin 1 B View of Vegetation Community
Sediment Basin 1B View of Vegetation Community
VMC Rockingham 2015 Sediment Basin 1B
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC Jurisdictional
e / DESIGI, 9 P,sI Ofk- B— K3, 1 0, 16, L. r`C ')SG77 0 W-1) 14( 0793

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID#
DWQ#
Transect S -7A — Non -RPW UT Hitchcock Creek
' `, STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Vulcan Materials Company 2. Evaluator's Name: Craie R. Wvant RLA /SWS
3. Date of Evaluation: August 14. 2015 4. Time of Evaluation: AM
5. Name of Stream: UT Hitchcock Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 10.4 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 if 10. County: Richmond
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From US 74 Bvnass South of Rockingham. take the
Cordova exit (Highwav 1117/1109) and turn North (left). Cross bridge and take first right turn into Vulcan Materials Comnanv
Rockingham Ouarrv. Follow entrance road to auarry office. Check in at office for specific site locations and permissions.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N34.92950. W79.82240
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): unknown
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain in past 24 hours. several inches rain in past week.
15. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunnv: 80 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES QIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES eO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 5 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
75 % Forested 15 % Cleared / Logged 5 % Other (Roads/Parking-)
21. Bankfull Width: 2' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4"
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 43 Comments:
J !>
Evaluator's Signature "-1 Date August 14. 2015
This channel evaluation form is intended to be edonly as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03 .
1

1
2
3
4
a 5
v
6
7
8
9
10
11
I
H
13
Q 14
H
15
16
H
17
H
18
x
19
20
21
04
O 22
23
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Transect S -7A — Non -RPW UT Hitchcock Creek
ECOREGION P
POINT R
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS I
SCORE
I S
Coastal P
Piedmont M
Mountain
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
43

NC ll1'4'Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Transect S -7A
Date: August 14, 2015
Project/Site: VMC Rockingham
Latitude: 34.9295
1 Evaluator: Craig R. Wyant RLA /SWS
County: Richmond,
NC
Longitude: - 79.8224
I Total Points:
Strgarn Determination (circle one)
Other Rockingham,
NC
Stream is at lean` intevmlttent
Ili 19 or pemnnial if? 30' 9.25
Ephemeral nterrnittent Perennial
e.g. Quad lYame:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ 4_0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1)
2
3
118,
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
�_T)
2
3
13. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
I O
1
2
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
(0)
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
( 0
(1
2
3
1 6. Depositional bars or benches
( 0)
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
( 0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0 �
1
2
3
1 9. Grade control
0
s0.5
1
1.5
1 10. Natural valley
0
(CO
1
1.5
1 11. Second or greater order channel
--
0_�)
Yes = 3
s art ificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ 1.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
113. Iron oxidizing bacteria
( 0
1
2
3
114. Leaf litter
1.5
1
(0.5�
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
��.5)
1
1.5
1 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(o = 0)
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _ 3.75__)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
( 1)
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
(2)
1
0
1 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
121. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
i 22. Fish
F-6
0,5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
1 24. Amphibians
0 I
0.5
1
1.5
1 25. Algae
0 (
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
v <:-rA_CW = 0.-7r> BL
= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
I
Sketch:
I
I
24"
y
1 4„
Section looking upstream
Jr
�r
(Not to Scale)
i
18"

Non -RPW Stream Transect S -7A Looking Upstream
Non -RPW Stream Transect S -7A Looking Downstream
VMC Rockingham 2015 Non -RPW Transect S -7A
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC Ephemeral
C7�IC51G�t- eYco1e / L IG` • POSE Offi- 13- 163, 11101 A-111 28077 • (704) 240 -0793

a�
0
3
a�
U
CIO
C3
.�
cd
0
r
a�
U
0
U
N
C�
c�3
a�
3
0
VA
WMIER,
V
U �
v� w
03
i
O
2
N
C'� U
x 0
OP4U
Ub
o
>��

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
Transect S -7B —RPW Ditch UT Hitchcock Creek
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET '
'
1. Applicant's Name: Vulcan Materials Comnanv 2. Evaluator's Name: Craie R. Wvant RLA /SWS
3. Date of Evaluation: Aueust 14.2015 4. Time of Evaluation: AM
5. Name of Stream: UT Hitchcock Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 12.0 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 If 10. County: Richmond
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From US 74 BVDass South of Rockineham. take the
Cordova exit (Hiehwav 1117/1109) and turn North (left). Cross bridee and take first right turn into Vulcan Materials Comnanv
Rockineham Ouarrv. Follow entrance road to ouarry office. Check in at office for specific site locations and Dermissions.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N34.92910. W79.82280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): unknown
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain in Dast 24 hours. several inches rain in Dast week.
15. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunnv: 80 decrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (�DIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES eO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 5 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
75 % Forested 15 % Cleared / Logged 5 % Other (Roads /Parking_)
21. Bankfull Width: 10 -30' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
' Total Score (from reverse): 39 Comments:
4 _
J !�
Evaluator's Signature "1 `-� Date August 14. 2015
This channel evaluation form is intended to be e..Iy as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03 .
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Transect S -713 —RPW Ditch UT Hitchcock Creek
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 39
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
I
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0
- 4
0-5
4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
( 0
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
�1
5
Groundwater discharge
a
g I
0-3
0-4
I
0-4
I
2
U
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0
— 4
0-2
0
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
1"
I Entrenchment / floodplain access
0—
5
0—
4
0—
2
0
a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
I
0-6
0-4
I
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity I
0-5
I 0-4
I
0-3
1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
I Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 l
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
I
0
— 5
NA
I
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening I
0-5
0-4
I
0-5
5
�.,
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
I I
0-5
0
— 5
0-5
5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
I 0-4
I
0-5
I
3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout — max points)
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
I
0-5
0 -
4
0-5
5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0—
3
0—
5 I
0-6
0
17
(no riffles /ripples or pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
mod' I
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness I
NA*
0-4
I
0-4
I
NA
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates I
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
I
0—
4 I
0-4
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 —
4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use I
0-6
I
0-5
I
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 1
100
100 1
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 39
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Transect S -713
Date: August 14, 2015
Project/Site: VMC Rockingham
Latitude: 34.9291
1 Evaluator: Craig R. Wyant RLA /SWS
County: Richmond, NC
Longitude: - 79.8228
Total Points:
Stream Dett!rn1natkw
Icircle one)
Other Rockingham, NC
Stream is at least intertwtent 19.75
if? 19 or perennial if;;-- 30`
Ephemera ntermitten erennial
e_g_ Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_ 6_5 __)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
(3 )
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(1)
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
O
1
2
3
i ripple -pool sequence
_
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
(1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
3
1 6. Depositional bars or benches
Npoo
1
2
3
i 7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
O
1
2
3
1 9. Grade control
0
(0.5)
1
1.5
110. Natural valley
0 �_
0.5
( 1)
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
( CNo = 0-�)
Yes = 3
s artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ 8.0
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
1 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
(.1
2
3
1 14. Leaf litter
1.5
i, i
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5)
1
1.5
1 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
= 0
Yes = 3
li
C. Biology (Subtotal = _ 5.25__)
'
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
(1)
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
(2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
1 21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
i 22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
(0.5
1
1.5
i 24. Amphibians
0
0.5
0-5
1
1.5
1 25. Algae
( 0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
(fACW = 0.7C)OBL
- 1.5 Other - 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
I .. _ _ _ _ _
Notes:
I
1
25 -40'
Sketch: )r 10 -30' )I Flag S -7.3
,5
I Trapezoidal Ditch 5 \ Section looking upstream
Dug Through Powerline
Right of Way (Not to Scale)
1
I

RPW Ditch Transect S -7 Looking Upstream
RPW Ditch Transect S -7 Looking Downstream
VMC Rockingham 2015
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC
RPW Ditch Transect S -7B
Jurisdictional
e -c -gee / CESIG�' • P-1 Office F IC i- I i')k . 'J" I-(. 2h077 • (704) 240 -0793

RPW Ditch Transect S -7B View of Bed
RPW Ditch Transect S -7B View of Bed
VMC Rockingham 2015 RPW Ditch Transect S -7B
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC Jurisdictional
r, / CrSIG� • Posf Of {ice 13— 1631 1 ig1, ,1, ".1'. 2,iO77 • (704) 240 -0793

RPW Ditch Transect S -7B Overview Looking West
RPW Ditch Transect S -7B Overview Looking West
VMC Rockingham 2015 RPW Ditch Transect S -7B
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC Jurisdictional
0
��'r -xe Ze -xe / LVSIW' • P-I Office Fox 163, Hlgk &"I" I, G 28077 • (704) 240 -0793
l

(
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DW0#
' ---' — '---
Transect S-NA— Non-RPW UT Hitchcock Creek
/ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
'
|. Applicant's Name: Vulcan Materials Compauv 2. Evaluator's Name: C,uia}l.WvmmRLA/8VVQ
'
3. Date ofEvaluation: &u2ust24.2015 4. Time ofEvaluation: AM
/
5. Name ofStream: UT Hitchcock Creek 6. River Basin: Yudkbn'YocDce
7. Approximate Drainage Area: l0.4acres 8. Stream Order: First
0. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 If 10. County: Richmond
'
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From DS74Bvnuoo South ofDockinehmu. take the
/
Cordova exit (Biebvvuv 1117/1109) and mco NuUb (left). Cross b,idae and take first dcht k/,o into Vulcan Mute6u|o Companv
` Boukiu2hmn0uurn/. Follow entrance road to auarry office. Check in at office for sDecific site locations and Dermissions.
'
12. Site Coordinates (if koov,n): N34.93130. W79.82660
/ l3. Proposed Channel Work (if mny): uukoovvu
14. Recent Weather Conditions: DJorain iopuxt24 hours, several inches rain inpumrweek.
` l5. Site conditions a( time of visit: Suuov:8Ode2rcea
/
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Soodou |O Tidu\ Waters 800cndul Fisheries Habitat
`
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed ____(l'l\/)
y_
�
17. lx there upond or lake |oom � \�0
located
upstream evaluation point? Y�8 /l[yem, estimate the water surface area:
, l8. Does channel appear ouUS(}S quad map? YES ��T� 19. Does (ED NO ��
. 20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _0_%Residential l_%Commercial _5__%Industrial 0%Agricultural
. �Z5_Y6Forested _15Y4 Cleared /Logged 5_% Other (8oudu/purking)
/ 2l.QuukfuUWidth: 3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top ofbook): 2`
.
23. Channel slope down center ofstream: X Flat (Oto2Y6) —Gentle (2to4%) ____Modcrato(4to lO%) ____81oop(>|0Y6)
. 24. Channel Sinuosity: —Straight X_ Occasional Bends Frequent Meander —Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Inm,couboom for completion of worksheet (located on page %): Begin by determining the most appropriate 000,cgioo huuod on
'
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must ho scored using the same zcomgioo. Assign points meach
.
characteristic within the range shown for the 000m&k`u. Page 3 provides u brief description of how m review the characteristics idouhfiodiuthe
worksheet. Scores should reflect uo overall assessment ofthe stream reach under evaluation. Ku characteristic cannot ho evaluated due m site o,
/
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of^strewn under review (e.g., the stream Oono from upuatvnn into u fon:ot), the stream may be divided into xmoUo, reaches that display more
'
continuity, and o separate form used tv evaluate each reach. The total score assigned wo stream reach must range between V and l00. with u score nf
. lV0 representing u stream of the highest quality.
.
Total Score (from reverse): 45 Comments:
. � E�lm��y ��om� \. �� aly �� Au��2�2015
Tbim obuouo| cvu|oudoo Ynrm to be as u guide to uusb* landowners and environmental professionals in
Autbedog the data required by the lJodod 8rumm Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
ytcuum quality. The total score resulting from the completion ofthis form io subject tn U8/kC0 approval and does not imply u
particular mitigation ratio ocrequirement. Form subject m change — version O5/U3.
I

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Transect S -8A — Non -RPW UT Hitchcock Creek
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 43
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
I
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream I
0-5
0
- 4
0-5
0
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration I
0-6
0-5
0-5
5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
( 0-4
0-4 I
5
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
�l
5
Groundwater discharge
g
0-3
0-4
0-4
0
U(no
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0
4
0-2
0
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
-
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access I
0-5
I 0-4
I
0-2
0
a"
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
I
0-3
4
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0
- 5
NA
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening I
0-5
I 0-4
0-5
4
>y
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0
— 5
0-5
5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks I
0-3
I 0-4
0-5
4
F ,
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0 —
5
0 —
4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
0—
3
I 0-5
0-6
0
(no riffles /ripples or pools = 0; well- developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
90
18
Canopy coverage over streambed I
0—
5
I 0—
5 (
0—
5
5
x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness I
NA*
0-4
I
0-4
I
NA
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 -
5 (
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
I
0-4
0-4
0
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
�
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
I
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100 I
100
100 I
45
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 43
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Transect S -SA
I Date: August 24, 2015
Project/Site: VMC Rockingham
Latitude: 34.9313
1 Evaluator: Craig R. Wyant RLA /SWS
County: Richmond, NC
Longitude: - 79.8266
Total Points:
Sham is at least interrnktent
12.0
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Perennial
Other Rockingham,
NC
it zt 19 or pemnnial if 't 30"
ntermlttent
e.g. Quad Nam:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_l0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2)
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thaiweg
0
1
3
13_ In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
C T)
2
3
5. Active /relict fioodplain
0
1
2
3
1 6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
i 7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 1
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
(0.5)
1
1.5
1 10. Natural valley
I 0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
0_�)
Yes = 3
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ 1.0
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
113. Iron oxidizing bacteria
( 0
1
2
3
i 14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
( 0)
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
(�0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 _
0.5)
1
1.5
1 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(o = 9
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal= _ 4.0
1 18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
CJ
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
I
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
121. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 I
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
1 25. Algae
F-06,
L ) I0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW - 0.75; OBL
- 1. Other =__O_�)
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
' Notes:
I
I
Sketch:
48"
I
y
i "T_
Section looking upstream
12
(Not to Scale)
1
24"

CC
O
O
I--1
U
N
3
i.
0
ii
3-i
1I^1
V1
U
U
3
0
-.0
I 03
W
^w�
1�
�1
O
r-I
0
N
U
z
. ;
U
U
C O
ti W
h
c
0
N
7
O
h
h
U
N
U
L
c
L

Non -RPW Stream Transect S -7A View of Bed
Non -RPW Stream Transect S -7A View of Culvert
VMC Rockingham 2015
Gas Line Relocation
Richmond County, NC
Non -RPW Transect S -8
Ephemeral
eYr'�a -e / DESIGn, • Post Offs" Dox 163, 1 q6 A"A" I11C 78U77 • (704) 240 -0793