20160343 Ver 1_401 Application_20160416

F)2
hdrinc.com
20 43
April 7, 2016
Mr. John Thomas
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Office lb
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 (bEm
Wake Forest, NC 27587 OMs. Jennifer Burdette(o N.0 Division of Water Resources � 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit �
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Subject: Nationwide No. 12 / General Water Quality Certification No. 3884 Approval
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
City of Winston-Salem Reynolds Creek Outfall Improvements Project
Forsyth County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
HDR, Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR), on behalf of the City of Winston-Salem
(City), is submitting a preliminary jurisdictional determination and Pre -Construction
Notification (PCN) application for Section 404/401 approval through the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 and N.C. Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3884 for construction
activities associated with the Reynolds Creek Outfall Improvements project (Project) in
Forsyth County (Figures 1 and 2).
The City/County Utility Commission (CCUC) developed a Wastewater System Master Plan
for the Muddy Creek Basin which identified undersized gravity sewer lines. One of the
recommendations of this Master Plan was to replace the parallel portion of the Reynolds
Creek Outfall. The Project includes replacement of 14,600 linear feet of gravity sewer to
upsize the existing undersized pipes.
The alignment begins at intersection of the Reynolds Creek Outfall and the Muddy Creek
Outfall south of Country Club Road and ends west of Saskatoon Lane in Lewisville, North
Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed construction corridor will be approximately 40
feet wide and the permanent maintenance corridor will be approximately 10 feet wide.
301 N Main S , Suite 2441, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
T 336 416 3462

April 7, 2016
Page 2
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
HDR reviewed the proposed alignment for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. The project area was examined according to the methodology
described in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, USACE Post-Rapanos
guidance, the recent USACE Regional Supplement, and the NCDWR Guidance. On-site
reconnaissance conducted in August 2015 revealed that the proposed project area
crosses one named stream and eight unnamed tributaries, as well as four wetlands
(Figure 3). The completed USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms and NCDWR
Stream Identification Forms are attached. Table 1 provides a summary of the delineated
features within the approximately 125 foot wide study area.
Table 1. Summary of Waters of the U.S.
Estimated
Stream/Wetland/
Amount of
Open Water/Pond
Latitude
Longitude
Stream
Cowardin
Aquatic
Class of
Site Number in
(DD)
(DD)
Classification
Classification
Resource in
Aquatic
Study Area
Study Area
Resource
(If or ac)
SA
36.089143
-80.372542
Intermittent
R4SB5
75
non section
10 — non -tidal
SB
36.089153
-80373746
Intermittent
R4SB4
120
non section
10 — non -tidal
SC (Reynolds
36.091424
-80.378753
Perennial
R2UB2
>14,000
non section
Creek)
10 — non -tidal
SD
36 091425
-80384193
Intermittent
R4SB5
100
non section
10 — non -tidal
SE
36.088962
-80.390061
Perennial
R2UB1
250
non section
10 — non -tidal
SF
36.088850
-80.393024
Intermittent
R4SB3
120
non section
10 — non -tidal
SG
36.093298
-80398772
Perennial
R2UB1
30
non section
10 — non -tidal
SH
36 094856
-80401469
Intermittent
R4SB3
50
non section
10 — non -tidal
SI
360956
-80404145
Intermittent
R4SB3
95
non section10
— non -tidal
WA
36 088979
-80.372962
PFO
01
non section
10 — non -tidal
WB
36 091501
-80378848
PFO
011
non section
10 — non -tidal
WC
36.090258
-80387362
PEM/PFO
0.28
non section
10 — non -tidal

April 7, 2016
Page 3
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The proposed sewer line was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional
streams and wetlands. Each crossing will be installed, at near perpendicular angles to the
existing streams to reduce impacts to channels and riparian areas. Twelve stream
crossings will consist of an approximate 5 -foot wide open cut trench excavation, followed
by placement of the sewer pipe buried greater than 12 inches below the existing stream
beds, resulting in approximately 40 linear feet (ID of temporary impacts each. Of the twelve
crossings, three will also include temporary followed by permanent culvert stream
crossings to be installed for the future maintenance corridor. A pump around with check
dams will be utilized during the installation of the permanent and temporary stream
crossings in order to work in the dry for the smaller stream crossings and coffer dams will
be used for the larger crossings of Reynolds Creek. A summary of the impacts are
included in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
Resource
Sheet No.
Resource
Type of Impact
Temporary Impacts
Estimated
Impact ID
Stream/Wetland/
Name
(If or acres
(If or acres)
Amount of
Class of
Open Water/Pond
Latitude
Longitude
Stream
Cowardin
Aquatic
Reynolds
Site Number in
(DD)
(DD)
Classification
Classification
Resource in
Aquatic
Study Area
UT to
Study Area
Resource
S2
C -03W
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
(If or ac)
0
WD
36 095432
-80.403965
backfilling), remove/replace existing
PEM/PFO
0.15
non section
culvert crossing
10 — non -tidal
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The proposed sewer line was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional
streams and wetlands. Each crossing will be installed, at near perpendicular angles to the
existing streams to reduce impacts to channels and riparian areas. Twelve stream
crossings will consist of an approximate 5 -foot wide open cut trench excavation, followed
by placement of the sewer pipe buried greater than 12 inches below the existing stream
beds, resulting in approximately 40 linear feet (ID of temporary impacts each. Of the twelve
crossings, three will also include temporary followed by permanent culvert stream
crossings to be installed for the future maintenance corridor. A pump around with check
dams will be utilized during the installation of the permanent and temporary stream
crossings in order to work in the dry for the smaller stream crossings and coffer dams will
be used for the larger crossings of Reynolds Creek. A summary of the impacts are
included in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
Resource
Sheet No.
Resource
Type of Impact
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Impact ID
Name
(If or acres
(If or acres)
UT to
Temporary erosion control
S1
C -03W
Reynolds
measures to protect stream during
22
0
Creek
construction
UT to
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
S2
C -03W
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
45
0
Creek
backfilling), remove/replace existing
culvert crossing
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
S3
C -05W
Creek
backfilling, temporary culvert
40
10
crossing), permanent ford style
crossing
Open Cut Trenching (dewatering,
UT to
excavation, pipe installation,
S4
C -07W
Reynolds
backfilling, temporary culvert
41
15
Creek
crossing), permanent culvert
crossing
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
S5
C -07W
Creek
backfilling, temporary culvert
31
10
crossing); permanent ford style
crossing

April 7, 2016
Page 4
Resource
Sheet No.
Resource
Type of Impact
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Impact ID
Name
(If or acres)
(If or acres)
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
UT to
excavation, pipe installation,
S6
C -09W
Reynolds
backfilling, temporary culvert
32
15
Creek
crossing), permanent culvert
crossing
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
S7
C -10W
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
31
0
Creek
backfilling, temporary culvert
crossin
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
S8
C -12W
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
45
0
Creek
backfilling, temporary culvert
crossing)
Open cut trenching (dewatenng,
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
S9
C -13W
Creek
backfilling, temporary culvert
30
10
crossing), permanent ford style
crossing
UT to
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
S10
C -14W
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
25
10
Creek
backfilling), permanent ford style
crossing
Open cut trenching (dewatering,
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
S11
C -14W
Creek
backfilling, temporary culvert
31
10
crossing); permanent ford style
crossing
Open cut trenching (dewatenng,
Reynolds
excavation, pipe installation,
S12
C -15W
Creek
backfilling, temporary culvert
30
10
crossing), permanent ford style
crossing
W1
C -03W
Wetland 1
Pipe installation and easement
002
0.01
W2
C -08W
Wetland 2
Pipe installation and easement
0.09
000
W3
C -15W
Wetland 3
Pipe installation and easement
008
003
Stream beds will be returned to their pre -construction elevation following excavation and
placement of pipe at the stream crossings. Stream banks will be sloped back where
feasible, matted with erosion control material, and seeded with a riparian seed mix. Three
permanent culvert crossings will be installed but buried 20% of the pipe or 1' depending on
size to allow for aquatic life movement and not to restrict flow. Rip rap associated with the
six "ford" style stream crossings will be buried at the existing stream bed elevation to allow
for aquatic life movement and not to restrict flows.
Sediment and erosion control measures will be employed prior to construction and
inspected and maintained throughout the duration of the project The NWP 12 does not
require compensatory mitigation for permanent stream impacts less than 150 If. Wetland
impacts have also been minimized during the planning process for the project and are

April 7, 2016
Page 5
further minimized by returning grades to their pre -construction elevations following pipe
installation and by replanting with an appropriate seed mix.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
HDR reviewed the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS database
and found no known historic structures located within the project alignment. The David
and Bayard Reynolds House (FY0139) is listed and was located along the alignment;
however the house is no longer present. HDR is coordinating with the SHPO on the
proposed outfall project. Correspondence (dated February 22, 2016) was sent to the
SHPO requesting comments on any possible historic/cultural resources that may be
impacted by the project. A response letter was received on March 11, 2016 and is
attached to this permit application.
Federally Protected Species
HDR obtained an updated species list from the U.S Fish and Wildlife's (USFWS) website
(http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/forsyth.html) which was last updated on July
24, 2015. Table 3 represents the species under federal protection in Forsyth County.
Other species have been classified as federal species of concern and are not subject to
consultation.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species in Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name
Common
Federal
Habitat
Record Status
Biological
Name
Status
Present
Conclusion
Hahaeetus leucocephalus
Bald eagle
BGPA
No
Current
No Effect
Glyptemys muhlenbergh
Bog turtle
T (S/A)
No
Current
NA
Myotis septentrionalts
Northern long-
eared bat
T
Yes
Probable/Potential
NLTAA
Cardamine micranthera
Small-anthered
E
Yes
Historic
NLTAA
bittercress
BGPA — Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
T (S/A) — threatened due to similarity of appearance A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed species and is
listed for its protection Taxa as T(S/A) are not biologically E or T and not subject to Section 7 consultation
T (Threatened) - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or significant portion of its range"
E (Endangered) — A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
NA — Not Applicable
NLTAA —"Not likely to adversely affect"
HDR conducted species surveys along the study area in August 2015. No suitable habitat
exists for the bald eagle and bog turtle within the study area. Although potential suitable
habitat for northern long-eared bat and small-anthered bittercress occurs within the study
area, surveys for the species did not result in any occurrences.

April 7, 2016
Page 6
Correspondence (February 22, 2016) was sent to the USFWS requesting comments on
any possible issues. A response was received on March 2, 2016 and has been included in
this package.
We are hereby requesting a preliminary jurisdictional determination for delineated waters
of the U.S. and authorization to construct the proposed Project under a Section 404 NWP
12 and Section 401 WQC No. 3884. If you have any questions or require additional
information after your review of the enclosed information, please contact me at (919) 338-
6855 or [e-mail].
Respectfully,
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
Jaw— it 116
Matt Shultz, PE
Project Manager
Attachments: Pre -Construction Notification
Adjacent Landowners (parcel IDs)
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2 USGS 24K Quadrangle: Winston-Salem West
Figure 3. Overview of Jurisdictional Feature Locations
Figure 4. NRCS Soils Survey
Project Plans
Wetland and Stream Impact Sheets
Request for Preliminary Jurisdiction Determination Form
NCDWR Stream Identification Form
USACE Wetland Determination Data Form
SHPO Concurrence Letter
USFWS Concurrence Letter
cc. William Ward - City of Winston-Salem
David Saunders, PE - HDR

0F VIAT�e�9oG
P
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program
❑ Yes
® No
1 g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Reynolds Creek Outfall Improvements
2b.
County-
Forsyth
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Winston-Salem
2d. Subdivision name
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T I P or state
project no
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed-
See attached plans containing parcel boundaries and property owner information
3b
Deed Book and Page No.
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable).
3d. Street address -
3e
City, state, zip.
3f
Telephone no.
3g
Fax no.:
3h
Email address -
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Municipality
4b.
Name:
Ron Hargrove, Utility Director
4c.
Business name
(if applicable)-
City/County Utility Commission
(an agency of the City of Winston -Salem)
4d
Street address:
PO Box 2511
4e
City, state, zip.
Winston -Salem, NC 27102
4f.
Telephone no
336-747-7312
4g.
Fax no.:
336-727-8432
4h
Email address:
[e-mail]
S.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name:
Matt Shultz, PE
5b
Business name
(if applicable)-
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
5c.
Street address.
440 South Church Street, Suite 1000
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
5e. Telephone no.:
704-338-6855
5f
Fax no.
704-338-6760
5g
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
See attached
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36 088746 Longitude- -80.390757
(DD DDDDDD) (-DD DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size:
The project area is approximately 18 8 acres.
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Reynolds Creek and UTs to Reynolds Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c. River basin. map is available at
Yadkin Pee Dee
http://h2o.enr state nc.us/admin/maps/
3. Project Description
3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The proposed outfall improvements generally follow the existing outfall along the riparian corridor of Reynolds Creek. The
surrounding land use is mainly forested and residential development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property. 0.64 acres of wetlands
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 560 linear feet (If) of intermittent stream and approximately 14,280 If of perennial stream were identified
within or near by the proposed project including-
- 75 If of intermittent Stream SA (UT to Reynolds Creek)
- 120 If of intermittent Stream SB (UT to Reynolds Creek)
- 14,000 If of Perennial Stream SC (Reynolds Creek)
- 100 If of intermittent Stream SD (UT to Reynolds Creek)
- 250 If of perennial Stream SE (UT to Reynolds Creek)
- 120 If of intermittent Stream SF (UT to Reynolds Creek)
- 30 If of perennial Stream SG (UT to Reynolds Creek)
- 50 If of intermittent Stream SH (UT to Reynolds Creek)
- 95 If of intermittent Stream SI (UT to Reynolds Creek)
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project.
The City/County Utility Commission (CCUC) developed a Wastewater System Master Plan for the Reynolds Creek Basin
which identified undersized gravity sewer lines. One of the recommendations of this Master Plan was to replace the parallel
portion of the Reynolds Creek Outfall This project includes replacement of approximately 14,600 linear feet of the Reynolds
Creek outfall (gravity sewer) to upsize the existing undersized pipes.
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used -
Approximately 14,600 linear feet of the Reynolds Creek outfall will be replaced. Standard construction equipment will be
used, such as excavators, backhoes, hauling trucks, etc. Please see the attached cover letter for additional details
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by
the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this'
ElYes
® No El Unknown
property / project (including all prior phases) in the past.
Comments
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what
El Preliminary [:1 Final '
type of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
6.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained
❑ Yes
® No ❑ Unknown
for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes
® No
6b.
If yes, explain.
c
C.
Proposed Impacts Inventory
1.
Impacts Summary
1a
Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply): '
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries
❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2.
Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete
this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact'
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1
❑ P ®T
Temporary
construction easement
PFO
® Yes
❑ No
®Corps
❑ DWQ
0.02
/ activities
W1
®P ❑ T
Fill / permanent
PFO®
Yes
® Corps
0 01
maintenance corridor
E] No,
El DWQ
W2
❑ P ®T
Temporary
construction easement
PEM/PFO
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
El DWQ
009
/ activities
W2
®P ❑ T
Fill / permanent
PEM/PFO
® Yes
® Corps
0.00
maintenance corridor
El No
El DWQ
W3
❑ P ® T
Temporary
construction easement
PEM/PFO
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.08
/ activities
W3
® P ❑ T
Fill / permanent
maintenance corridor
PEM/PFO
® Yes
ElNo
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.03
Page 4 of 13

2g. Total wetland impacts
0.23
2h. Comments
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ - non-404,
width
(linear feet)
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
Temporary
erosion control
S1 [:I POT
measures to
UT to Reynolds
El PER
® Corps
2
22
protect stream
Stream A
® INT
® DWQ
during
construction
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S2 [-IP ®T
excavation, pipe
installation,
UT to Reynolds
El PER
® Corps
3
45
backfilling,
Stream B
®INT
®DWQ
remove/replace
existing culvert
crossing)
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S3 ❑ P ® T
excavation, pipe
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
40
installation,
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Permanent ford
S3 ®P ❑ T
style crossing for
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
10
maintenance
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
corridor
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S4 ❑ POT
excavation, pipe
UT to Reynolds
❑ PER
® Corps
2
41
installation,
Stream D
® INT
® DWQ
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Permanent culvert
S4 ® P ❑ T
crossing for
UT to Reynolds
❑ PER
® Corps
2
15
maintenance
Stream D
® INT
® DWQ
corridor
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S5 ❑ P ®T
excavation, pipe
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
31
installation,
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Permanent ford
S5 ®P ❑ T
style crossing for
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
10
maintenance
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
corridor
Page 5 of 13

Page 6 of 13
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S6 ❑ P ®T
excavation, pipe
UT to Reynolds
® PER
® Corps
3
32
installation,
Stream E
❑ INT
® DWQ
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Fill (permanent
S6 ® P [-IT
culvert crossing
UT to Reynolds
® PER
® Corps
3
15
for maintenance
Stream E
❑ INT
® DWQ
corridor)
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S7 ❑ P ®T
excavation, pipe
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
31
installation,
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S8 ❑ P ® T
excavation, pipe
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
45
installation,
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S9 ❑ P ®T
excavation, pipe
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
30
installation,
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ . -,
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Permanent ford
S9 ®P ❑ T
style crossing for
Reynolds Creek
® PER •
® Corps
20
10
maintenance
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
corridor
Open Cut
Trenching
S10 ❑ P ®T
(dewatenng,
UT to Reynolds
❑ PER
® Corps
4
25
excavation, pipe
Stream I
® INT
® DWQ
installation,
backfilling)
Permanent ford
S10 ®P ❑ T
style crossing for
UT to Reynolds
❑ PER
® Corps
4
10
maintenance
Stream I
® INT
® DWQ
corridor
Open Cut
Trenching
(dewatering,
S11 ❑ P ®T
excavation, pipe
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
31
installation,
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Permanent ford
S11 ®P ❑ T
style crossing for
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
10
maintenance
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
corridor
S12 []POT
Open Cut
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
30
Page 6 of 13

Page 7 of 13
Trenching
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
(dewatenng,
excavation, pipe
installation,
backfilling,
temporary culvert
crossing)
Permanent ford
S12 ® P ❑ T
style crossing for
Reynolds Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
10
maintenance
Stream C
❑ INT
® DWQ
corridor
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
493
31. Comments:
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of
impact number
waterbody
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
— Permanent (P)
(if applicable)
or Temporary
T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g Comments:
S. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments:
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 7 of 13

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other: Jordan Lake
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c.
6d
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P)
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
or Temporary
impact
required?
131 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
61 Comments:
Page 8 of 13

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project was aligned to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands. All stream
crossings are at or near perpendicular angles to reduce impacts to channels and riparian areas. The outfall was moved
away from Reynolds Creek to the extent possible. Wetland B was avoided and construction corridors were reduced
where feasible through wetlands/streams. The permanent maintenance corridor was also reduced to the extent possible
and in general is proposed to be approximatley 10' wide.
b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Stream beds will be returned to their pre -construction elevation following excavation and placement of pipe at the stream
crossings Stream banks will be sloped back where feasible, matted with erosion control material, and seeded with a
riparian seed mix. Three permanent culvert crossings will be installed but buried 20% of the pipe or 1' depending on size
to allow for aquatic life movement and not to restrict flow. Sediment and erosion control measures will be employed prior
to construction and inspected and maintained throughout the duration of the project.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply).
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool [-]cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested.
acres
4f Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
S. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? If yes, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
contact the State for more information.
El Yes No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 13

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included9 If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is placement of an underground utility and will not create
❑ Yes ❑ No
any concentrated flows.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The project does not increase impervious surfaces or stormwater flows.
2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached9
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
(check all that apply).
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter )
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
® Yes El No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project need is to increase the size of currently undersized pipes along the sewer outfall in order to accommodate
storm events with a low risk of overflow Currently, the models predict surcharge and potential overflows during the base
5 year storm. This is the main reason for the increased pipe size. However, with the increase in pipe size there is
potential for additional development within the service area. The City/Forsyth County has zoning regulations and the
Unified Development Ordinance in place to minimize environmental degradation and provide protection for resources
which covers topics such as floodways, watershed protection, erosion control, stormwater, etc.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
Raleigh
®
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
HDR conducted species surveys along the study area in August 2015. No suitable habitat exists for the bald eagle and bog
turtle within the study area. Although potential suitable habitat for Northern long-eared bat and small-anthered bittercress
occurs within the stunV area, surveys for the species did not result in any occurrences. A letter from the USFWS was
received on March 2" concurring with the determination that the project "may affect" but is "not likely to adversely affect" the
northern long-eared bat or small-anthered bittercress. This correspondence is attached.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
EFH Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
® Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
HDR reviewed the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) GIS database and found no known historic
structures located within the project alignment; however, the Hope -Fraternity Rural Historic District is within the project area.
Correspondence (February 22, 2016) was sent to the HPO requesting comments on any possible issues that may emerge
with respect to the historic or archaeological resources. A response from HPO was received on March 11, 2016 with no
comments.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: An analysis is currently underway to verify if there are any impacts
within the FEMA -designated floodplain Results of this analysis will be provided following completion. There will be no
permanent above grade fill within regulated floodplains with the exception of required manholes; however, existing
manholes will be removed.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Flood Risk Information System
r
411/2416
I
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Appt an gent's Signature
(Agent's signature is vali only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Is rovided.
Page 13 of 13

O
D
3
w„`
v
f7
W
W
n
z
v
W
l7
O
D—rDv
v
N
"
W
`_-
r
7o
D
f'1
r
r
D
W
n
7C
-i
O
S
<
c
rD
�
m
d
m
O
S
O
O
v
of
tL
d
c�
''
0)
n=
v
o
S
�
o
�.
M
m
v=
c_
c_
c_
c
K,
y
-'
n
a
T<
p
v
O
Cr
�.
a
o
a
C
S
o
<
�
D
O
�,
FA
my
�+
oo
-i
'i
S
7
m
W
O
p
rD
rD
d
—
Ti
c
'+
O
N
C1
—
ro
m
v
c/
a
=*
m
p_
S
m
<
<
m
*
N
v,
z
m
rD
r+
rD
�'
D
<
d
<
W
<
W
<
W
D
m
2
w
n
;PIZ7
W
O
7
-0
0
7
cu
D•
n
m
-
7
m
v
m
v
70
O
m
0)
m
N
7
3
-h
m
rD
7
7
7
�<
n
,
N
m
f'1
m
N`
M
m
W
2
c
0
Ci
m
m
m
m
m
r
r
W
m
O
2
r
0
N
<
rSD
r=D
S
t�ii
o
'+
rmD
C
In
r
m
3
O
7
S
a
cn
,<
,<
,<
-G
n
v,
m
a
c
r<D
.+
3
d
p
W
m
v
o,
,or
�
`�
-0
oo
cn
o
a
,rt
x
x
oma—,
W�
G
2
x
x
x
o
n
O
°0
of
rhD
O
to
N
m
-,
rD
Z
m
n
m
v
p
c
O
3
c
-p
O
a
m
O
m
Q
p
=
m
m
0
O
O
O
O
r
ci
O
d
n
a
G)
o
�'
O_
o,
u,
w"
D
L,
v,
W
y
O
m
S
'+
rr
m;
7
v
3
G)
n
d
r+
S
r
r
3
3
3
3
rr
n
7
0
S
O
W
N
CL
N
H
o
0"
O
m
m
w
CL
0
m
W
N
O
c
n
n
m
m
m
m
p
Q
0
'^
m
<
m
OJ
ct
7
�
rD
O
mF
O
v
rD
7
O
-�
7
w
-0
CL
O
m
m
0-
S
O
�n
v
v
u,
o
m
2
o
CLQ
"
w
_
<
�.
m°
c
z
a
c,
3
a
0
Q
p
a
__
a
CL
aq
c,
n
———
X,
0J
CL
�
7
-<
"
of
•
n
Cl
W
1
m
ri
c)
v
O0
rD
K
O
CL
N
o-
Z
CL
+
W
=
p
-Z
m
0l
3
7
>
>
7
3
a
M
w
3
D
w
r-
'
v
=
O=
rD
S<
of
a
G1
�,
n
m
m
d
m_
3
v
v
-,
n
n
n
n
m
WCU
a
_K
n=?
°'
'r
p
°1
x
M
W
O
y
y
Or
a
CL
—
n°
cu
d
O-
oni
19
v
O
�+
n
o
r
O
D
O_
m
m
O
'�F
m
v
W
7
O'
d
rr
n
r
7
m
7C
3
N
n
S
Q
c
`
o'
r
S
W
aQ
m
N
d
OOO
m
m
0
fu
a
S
M
r
r1
W
M
0
c
m
n
'�*
rDaq
d
cu
TI
Q
m
O
n
3
C
cn
v
coo
o
7
r
N
0
n�i
rD
N
cn
°+
cr
r
m
rmD
M
�.
rl
N
n
<
W
f�D
O
m
OS
m
N
S
2
W
Gl
rD
m
N
O
m
_`
v
to
C
3
p
7
W
vi
S
S
a
d
o
Ln
m
�
3
0
0
�
o,
3
'C
°'
'*
m
v,
m
c7
O
m
n
m
N
O
S
X
—
O
O
mrD
4
p
m
d
3
o
�.
0-
lu
c
m
c
n
co
an
'+
v
0,
�
D
L3,-
d
m'
n
�
m
o
�
7
N
N
N
N
W
N
I.-
W
N
1-
N
N
N
w
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
F-+
W
F.4
N
N
F+
N
Vi
N
N
N
N
N
F-+
N
p
-0
In
U'1
W
M
In
O
N
M
V
W
O
F+
F-+
N
F+
F+
Vi
lD
A
N
00
F-b
F+
U•1
to
F+
00
W
V
V
00
O
tD
F�
Ol
V
00
A
A
V
00
00
F+
U'1
00
O)
O
W
tD
N
N
0)
w
N
N
00
W
V
Cil
V
Cil
to
O
A
O
F�
tD
W
A
N
tD
0)
A
00
Vi
N
A
Ol
01
In
tD
W
N
N
to
F•+
N
V
Ol
W
W
fD
U'1
\
A
\
A
\
W
\
tD
\
In
\
O1
\
W
lrt
N
to
F-�
tD
07
A
w
V
M
O
A
A
O
In
V
A
W
F•+
tD
V
O
M
tD
to
Cr)
N
W\
W
W
00
00
A
V
tD
�
W
W
N
W
A
W
\
\
W
\
A
\
V
\
N
\
W
\
N
\
\
\
\
W
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
F+
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
m
W
O
A
Ol
W
ID
tD
00
V
N
F-'
FA
W
W
N
W
W
A
N
W
W
W
W
to
tD
W
In
N
F+
F�
F+
N
N
Ln
4
F+
V
Co
00
A
W
0)
Vi
F+
F-�
N
A
N
O
1
W
W
W
Ln
V
V
A
N
co
m
N
V
N
ID
U'I
A
A
N
V
w
<
FJ
W
O
N
O
V
O
Vi
w
00
V
A
W
O
W
0)
F+
V
t0
O
A
N
A
M
N
N
M
W
W
O
w
w
N
00
Vi
Ol
w
tD
w
O
W
N
t0
O
co
O
w
0)
O
A
Ol
V
Vi
N
N
tD
UI
V
A
V
N
N
V
w
W
N
A
In
N
w
01
01
Q1
ArD
O
w
O
m
Q
n
M
m
A
A
A
A
A
w
w
W
of
N
A
A
w
w
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
to
to
Ln
A
A
C
0
tD
00
00
tD
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
V
N
N
N
co
W
W
W
Ol
M
Ln
W
tD
\
\
\
\
\
\
FA
\
\
\
W
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
co
W
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ol
F+
F-+
F-+
Ol
F+
F�
F.•
F�
lD
N
F+
cn
N
W
W
W
W
A
A
w
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
V
V
V
A
A
A
Cn
rn
W
In
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
tD
tD
l0
W
co
W
w
V
%i
U'1
Vi
U'1
U'1
to
to
U'1
In
In
to
U'1
Vt
In
In
In
to
U'I
In
In
In
Vi
to
Ln
In
In
In
Vi
In
Vi
In
tri
Vt
U•I
In
Ln
In
In
Ui
In
In
to
w
U•I
Ul
Vt
00
00
00
00
00
co
W
W
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
co
00
00
00
00
00
co
00
co
00
00
00
co
co
co
co
W
co
0o
W
co
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
U1
00
co
co
00
00
W
00
00
co
co
00
00
00
00
00
co
co
W
00
00
00
00
00
00
CO
CO
Co
co
W
W
co
tD
w
w
tD
w
tD
W
W
IO
tD
tD
t0
tD
tD
tD
Vi
Vi
Vi
In
T
T
T
Vi
U•I
Vi
In
Vi
U•I
In
In
Ut
In
In
U'I
In
Vi
T
T
U'I
to
In
to
to
U•I
In
In
U•I
In
In
Vt
In
V1
Vi
In
In
W
Z
A
A
A
A
Ln
l!i
U 1
In
V I
In
M
M
0)
M
M
V
V
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
T
W
tD
W
tD
W
O
T
O
T
O
N
N
N
N
N
W
IN
T
In
U'I
rn
rn
Cn
T
T
rn
T
T
V
rn
m
m
Irl
Ln
In
Ln
In
A.�
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
w
w
w
A
A
.A
A
W
U•I
Vi
In
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
W
V
V
W
tD
O
O
W
A
V
tD
N
01
V
U•I
W
F--+
F�l
w
W
N
W
A
A
U•I
01
W
AO
Vi
01
A
W
6
F-�
W
W
w
F�
Vi
tD
tD
Vi
to
M
M
0)
W
A
A
N
Ai-
O
IO
m
Vi
N
A
W
oo
V
Ol
Ln
A
W
N
F�
O
W
W
tD
F+
w
W
F k
W
V
A
F
V
V
V
01
W
C f>
W
W
O
tD
A
F+
lD
V
A
F�
m
N
F-+
O
01
V
A
A
ID
W
O
01
F+
N
W
A
N
V
N
O
W
w
V
In
O
m
N
V
F•+
F+
w
M
W
N
A
A
O
CO
A
V
W
F-
N
A
LO
V
Ol
W
V
M
Vi
W
W
A
to
to
W
N
W
W
W
W
W
F+
tO
V
I-A
N
W
to
Ln
A
Co
W
O
N
F-
V
101`4
I
10%1%4
i
E,-4
m
m
W
N I
N
F"

Y T>k+
O
�
I
CL
a,
Jry2
W
V
U �
�O
(D
U
L)
000
d U c
>`
C N N
of
MCD c
c c
C:
0
U)
Y
C (D
� J �
U
a` 0 a
0
m 0
O
En T
cm 0
wU)x
0
F_ o W
z��
2 V LL
LL!O
> J
0 U
W �
d O
J a
J
LL
F_
D
0
Y
W
W
w
U
J
0
z
W
w

A
AR
N
w
LL
�' ��\ r�����- ��� � ���� -.,1 i _� � � � l �c �`� �• w' � � � ../'�� �' %�' • ` moi'\
� � � � L___. -SAI. � i.( !fit �ii'-�.-�. � In
��' � � •%4� '' � _
IF
�tt Lr �. •Vim / _ t !•�� � Y\ I a
f✓ANY/ I;k �I � j /� ` !� ' • �� ' ;, l-vJ'�- �s
' ', `�..\� O tl �.i�.�.��� rvr• Sal' r� ' �' a ' S /l y H
I CL
T 7��� Imo\ \ a ,14 1) �� • ' 1 F (� , _ �j T o
3 I)'f ' f� r� ^11r.r' •fir y, = _\. ` /� s
o� �'/ ✓�, 1 `�J O C V _ �,� ti. SSL .moi f ` �� �ll�i� tel' ■ 1
���r-
z
I �` ` �`
T` �,`•i!{1111�`, lr
N
w
LL
�' ��\ r�����- ��� � ���� -.,1 i _� � � � l �c �`� �• w' � � � ../'�� �' %�' • ` moi'\
� � � � L___. -SAI. � i.( !fit �ii'-�.-�. � In
��' � � •%4� '' � _
IF
�tt Lr �. •Vim / _ t !•�� � Y\ I a
f✓ANY/ I;k �I � j /� ` !� ' • �� ' ;, l-vJ'�- �s
' ', `�..\� O tl �.i�.�.��� rvr• Sal' r� ' �' a ' S /l y H
I CL
T 7��� Imo\ \ a ,14 1) �� • ' 1 F (� , _ �j T o
3 I)'f ' f� r� ^11r.r' •fir y, = _\. ` /� s
o� �'/ ✓�, 1 `�J O C V _ �,� ti. SSL .moi f ` �� �ll�i� tel' ■ 1
���r-
z

T
N
T
C�
-n Z'
5
C
m Z
W v
OeA
F
4 � Ellin
gton Dr
MINA AM
r
I
m
L7
m
z
0
O (D
N
=r,
y N in
=r s G7
WET
i
m m C
N Q r. W
D o
7�imw
V
N 0cri
•
j ... .s
t
CL
y 0
\ N
W00
o
a
L
Cl)
O
00
c
0
w - At
-,n
C
(D Q
_
a
Fairhav� a Ra
,
♦wrM 60
CD..—
00
i
c 'P f
� W C
N
i � ► , pVD Q
i cn C7 W
W W oW CD
O j �v
O O ♦`
A N O
(D
rt
- h
}
V. i
Kwt
h
r
I
m
L7
m
z
0
N
=r,
y N in
=r s G7
a) C
CL a
m
m m C
`� D
(D
v
m v
°1
CL
y 0
o
a
c
0
-,n
C
(D Q
_
a
0
0
0
,
♦wrM 60
CD..—
00
i
c 'P f
� W C
N
i � ► , pVD Q
i cn C7 W
W W oW CD
O j �v
O O ♦`
A N O
(D
rt
- h
}
V. i
Kwt
h

t �
:srr
Or
9`
IL €
77r
_ ,r r Enrico St
r .s
Manarda Ci
- N
€ rf ? '
Reynolds Rd
x
3 r
t' m m ro
m OL
m ,
3
a:
�.
m
r
Z >
M*
n
(n
C
m
z`
Q
T
C
D;=oe
D
-I
`>^
rC�CL
C
m
z a
z
to
Ill
-<
�, 4,; a .Ellington'
eteirie Ln
T +� `��
ValleystrZrn Rd
�`tt
p+eauo� '0 1,
—�
1�4
r
m
G7
m
z`
Q
/5y�%'
o
r
`>^
rC�CL
C
Z x U)
.0 O C
'
k
e -r
o
Ct

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
William Ward, City of Winston-Salem, City/County Utilities, PO Box 2511, Winston-Salem, NC 27102
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Reynolds Creek Outtell Improvemenis (Project) encompasses 14,400 linear feel in length of gmvily sewer to upsize existing undersized pipes See cover letter for additional details
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Forsyth County City: Winston-Salem
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 36088746 ON; Long. -80.390757 °W,
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Reynolds Creek, Muddy Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
>14,840 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
COwardln Class: R4SB3, R4SB4, R4SB5, R2UB2, R2UB1
Stream Flow: intermittent, perennial
Wetlands: >0 64 acres.
Cowardin Class: PFO, PEM
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:
1

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
✓❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:
❑✓ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
❑Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑✓ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24K. Clemmons and Winslor�Saiem West
✓❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: Forsyth county
0 National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Nwi web services
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date): or
❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
2

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.

This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4 A0
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

IT
NC DWQ Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I 1
ProjectlSite. it ��`�J}ref 1 ��
Latitude: '2 &
Evaluator: ��'` j �?
County:
Longitude:-�?,
Total Points:
Stream Dete o circle one)
Other J ) t
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or erenn,al if z 30* 2�
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e g Quad Name:
<_1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 6 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1.5
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
L1 ,
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0.5
Cl
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual3
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = c )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
CO2
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
15
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
`0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
U
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
05
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
V
05
1
15
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:
-� -�

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
[Date,
Project/Site:
Latitude: , c
Evaluator: —T
County: �,,
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Deterr��ation (circle one)
Ephemera II/ ntermitten Perennial
�_
Other f'�Cc �r
e Quad Name:
rf>_ 19 or erennial,f>_ 30"
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
g
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I `� }
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,
ripple -pool sequence
No = 0
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
-
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
, 5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No
I Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions In manual
B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal
12, Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2 3
14 Leaf litter
1 5 1
0.5 0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
Ga 15
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Ye = 3
C. Bi0lo (Subtotal = C�
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish 0
05
1
1 5
23. Crayfish
05
1
1.5
24 Amphibians (0
05
1
1 5
25 Algae 0
0.5
1
1 5
26. Wetland plants In streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual
Notes -
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: � � �
Latitude: j 6 0q l (.42 Ct
Evaluator: �'�'°S �7�
County:
Longitude:— �b
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circ o
Other
Stream is at least intermittent /
rfz 19 or erennral rf>_ 30" ��
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e g Quad Name: (1 e,,,tn;,�
A, Geomorphology (Subtotal = Z 21 5-1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
_
1
{ J
3
3. In -channel structure. ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
05
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
11-0
2
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
�37
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
e 33
8 Headcuts
Q
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
( 1
1
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes= 3�,
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
1 0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
Co 1
2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
3
14 Leaf litter
(r1 5 1
0.5
0
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
1
05
1.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1
1 1.5
(1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1 15
Yes 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = S
18 Fibrous roots in streambedr
2
1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2 3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
ij
2 3
22 Fish
0
05
15
23 Crayfish
0.5
1 1.5
24 Amphibians
0
0
1 15
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch
ee'k_

NC DWQ Stream identification Form Version 4.11
[Date: f �� /�
ProjectlSite �� y
Latitude: 36 .oj 14 -2S -
Evaluator: i ��%;
County:
Longitude: -Q
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least mtennrttentrI
if>_ i9 or erennral if>_ 30'
Ephemer Intermitten Perennial
e g Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1.5
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
601
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
No = 0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
M1
1.5
10 Natural valley
0
05
1.5
11 Second or greater order channel
No t' 0
Yes = 3
artiticial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = K1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 3
14 Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water tablet
0
No = 0
Ye <:- 3j
G. Biolow (Subtotal = b
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants In streambed
,3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23 Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
1.5
25 Algae
0
0.5
1
1 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1 5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch.
t
11

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site
Latitude: �rJp j�l r
Evaluator:
County: � ��
Longitude: - 8[j .
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent E--
J
Stream Determination (ca ln
Ephemeral Intermittent Pee_Qrenni
1' l_,, _
,1 _. Other X. —
e Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial rf>_ 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
g
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1 1- )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
OD
2
3
3 In -channel structure, ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
n le ool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
M7
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
cli
2
3
8 Headcuts
701D
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
(-1.5
11 Second or greater order channel
No
0=
Yes = 3
Sketch
3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual `
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = q )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
e1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0)
No = 0
1
Yes 3 y
C. Biology (Subtotal = 9 •X-- }
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
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
(V
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
05
1
1.5
23 Crayfish
0)
0.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
1.5
25 Algae
0J 1
0.5
1
1 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75,
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual
Notes -
Sketch
3
QZ (AJ�

NC DWQ Stream identification Forin Version 4.11
Date: I o ! / -
Project/Site: (� � �r,q P
Latitude:F h -0a&' n
Evaluator:County:
��� r,_.
Longitude: -80- Jcf a
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
I.
1
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent r �°°° "
>_ J
Stream Determination__(circle one)
Ephemera Intermittent erennial
Othercar2ct r,� t—
e g Quad Name: �`
if 19 or perennial if 2t 30"_
0
1
s71
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= V )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
0.5
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
16 Organic debris lines or piles
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,"
ripple -pool sequence
`"
1
2
Yes C~ 3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
, 1"
2
1
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0'.
1
2
15
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
4 2.
26 Wetland plants in streambed
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
Other = 0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
7
2
3
9 Grade control
0
C0 5-
1
1.
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No, 00
Yes = 3
aruficiai ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= ? -S- )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
QA 1
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0 01
1
15
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes C~ 3
1
C. Biology (Subtotal = (,I )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
0.5
1
15
25 Algae
91
0.5
1
1.5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual.
Notes
Sketch:
lt- 5 --�}
Z

I
NC DWO Stream Identification Fnrrn Version 4-11
Date:
Project/Site' �r�
Latitude: 2,ce Dc�
',Evaluator: I
County: S
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
� '
Stream Determination (circled
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
Other SI-f-erA o i �7
e.g Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = /S 5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la 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,
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
/r j
(�/
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1 5
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
CD
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
co
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0.5
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1
(1 5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch
7I
aiimuai uncnes are not rates, see aiscussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = A, 1
12 Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1 2 3
14. Leaf litter
1 1 05 0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0 n 1 1.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5 1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 Yes = 3
%_ mioiu❑v IJIJnraTni = •% }
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 r
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
10 1
0.5
1
1 5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
BY0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 'of manual.
Notes:
Sketch
7I
Q

I
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
IDate: O /'-' z
ProjecttSite: �r'f� taifl ral Y f �
Latitude: �
Evaluator:
County:Longitude:
f"Cy .,t
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
Total Points:
Stream is at least !
�1
Stream Determigatjon (circle one)
Ephemeral 1ntermitten Perennial
Other `j j ;'`tP��l
lintermittent _
_ 3
rfZ 19 or erennialrf>
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
e g Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = a )
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,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0,5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
FCQ,51
1
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
_
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
" 1'
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
A
No = 0 -
Yes = 3
GlLMU1111 UIP711CSS wt: wi. Idivu, SCI,'' u15cu5srons in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Suhtotnl = t f'3 • C"` 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
co
3
14. Leaf litter
13
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0,5
1
1.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
FCQ,51
1
1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table9
0
No = 0
Yes =
1.5
U rsioioav i5L1Di01AI = :-,A 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
0.5
1
1 5
23, Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1 5
25 Algae
0.5
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1 5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes.
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Ve;t•sion 4.11
Date:
Project/Site'
Latitude:
Evaluator: `�
County:
Longitude: 30.
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
�(
Stream Deter 'Heti circle one)
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
Other
Quad Name:
if 2! 19 or perennial rf>_ 30" J
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
e.g.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = f ':�)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1.5
1
2
3
3 In -channel structure- ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
COD1
0.
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
_
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
0
(9),
1
2
3
1 2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
1 5
11. Second or greater order channel
No60J
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = I )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
�..
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
05
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
6P.0
1
_ 1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes`
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
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
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
05
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians0
0.5
1
15
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
I
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:
•41
{� /, ztL_

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Reynolds Creek Sewer City/County. Winsoton-Salem Sampling Date- 8/11/2015
Applicant/Owner City of Winston-Salem State. NC Sampling Point. DP1 - Wet A
Investigator(s). Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range- Winston Salem
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc.) Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA136 of LRR P Lat: 36.0889790 Long: -80.3729620 Datum. NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V/ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (610)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
X Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
X Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches). 5„
Saturation Present? Yes 1( No
Depth (inches). 3„
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous rnspecbons), if available:
Remarks.
Indicators of Wetland Hydrology
are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers � Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

VEGETP' TION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1 - wet A
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum Plot size 30 foot radius
( )
°
/° Cover Species Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
50 Yes FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 6 (A)
2 Acer rubrum
50 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 9 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 67% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
100 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% of total cover 50 0
20% of total cover 20 0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 foot radius
FACW species x 2 =
1 Ligustrum sinense
40 Yes FACU
FAC species x 3 =
2 Lindera benzoin
20 Yes FAC
FACU species x 4 =
3 Celtis laevigata
10 No FACW
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
—
3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
70 = Total Cover
—
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
°
50% of total cover: 35.0
°
20% of total cover. 14 0
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5 foot radius )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Ligustrum sinense
10 Yes FACU
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Parthenocissus quinquefolia
10 Yes FACU
3 Toxicodendron radicans
10 Yes FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4. Boehmeria cylindrica
10 Yes FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
18
9
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
40 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover 20.0
20% of total cover 8.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30 foot radius )
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1 Smilax rotundifolia
5 Yes FAC
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
5 = Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover 2 5
20% of total cover 10
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DPI -Wet A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 5/1 80
7.5YR 3/4 20 C M
Silt loam
12-20 10YR 6/3 100
Sand
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matra
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (1`2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V( No
Remarks
The F3 hydric soil indicator is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Reynolds Creek Sewer City/County: Winston-Salem Sampling Date 8/11/2015
Applicant/Owner City of Winston-Salem State NC Sampling Point DP2 - Upl
Investigator(s) Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range Winston Salem
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc )• Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none). none Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA). MLRA136 of LRR P Lat. 36.0890820_ Long: -80.3730420 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Chewacla loam NWI classification N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V( No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
Data point is'representative of a non -jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
Surface Sod Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No' ✓
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches).
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available -
Remarks.
No indicators of Wetland Hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

e
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point DP2 - Up[
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum/° Plot size 30 foot radius
( )
° Cover
Species ? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum
30
Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 4 (A)
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
30
Yes FACW
1
3 Ulmus a/ata
20
Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant 6
Species Across All Strata (B)
q Betula nigra
20
Yes FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
5That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 67% (A/g)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
100
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% of total cover 50.0
20% of total cover 20.0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 foot radius j
FACW species x 2 =
1 Ligustrum srnense
40
Yes FACU
FAC species x 3 =
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
No FACW
FACU species x4=
3 Quercus phellos
10
No FAC
UPL species x 5 =
q
Column Totals (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
60
= Total Cover
_
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover 30.0
20% of
total cover- 12 0
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5 foot radius
)
'
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Boehmeria cylindrica
15
Yes FACW
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Onoclea sensibilis
5
NO FACW
3 Toxicodendron radicans
5
No FAC
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
q Microstegium vimineum
5
No FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height.
8
Sapling/Shrub –Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
30
= Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover 15.0
20% of total cover 6.0
30 foot radius
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size)
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
0
= Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover 0 0
20% of total cover 0.0
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL J Sampling Point: DP2 - Upl
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 3/4 100
loam
8-20 7.5YR 4/4 95
2.5Y 5/4 5
Silt loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matra, MS=Masked Sand Grains
2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
-_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (1`19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147) unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth
(inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks
No hydric soil indicator are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

• WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Reynolds Creek Sewer City/County. Winston-Salem Sampling Date 8/11/2015
Applicant/Owner City of Winston-Salem State: NC Sampling Point. DP3 - Wet B
Investigator(s) Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range Winston Salem
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope (%) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA136 of LRR P Lat 36.091501* Long -80.378848' Datum NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla loam NWI classification- PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V/ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes • No
Wedand Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two regwred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (610)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
X Water Marks (61)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
%< Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches)- 0-3"
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches) 0„
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches). 0„
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks.
Indicators of Wetland Hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP3 - Wet B
30 foot radius
Aosowte uominant inaicator
uommance iestworKsneet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Platanus occidentalis
30 YeS FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 8 (A)
2 Betula nigra
20 Yes FACW
3 Liquidambar styraciflua
20 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant 9
Species Across All Strata (B)
4 Salix nigra
20 Yes OBL
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 89% (A/8)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
90 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% of total cover
45.0 20% of total cover 18 0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 foot radius
FACW species x 2 =
1 L►gustrum sinense
10 Yes FACU
FAC species x 3 =
2 Betula nigra
10 Yes FACW
FACU species x 4 =
3 Acer rubrum
10 Yes FAC
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
30 = Total Cover
—
,
4 -Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
50% of total cover
15.0 20% of total cover 6.0
—
Herb Stratum (Plotsize 5 foot radius
)
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Boehmeria cylindrica
30 Yes FACW
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Carex crinita
20 Yes OBL
3 Persicaria pensylvanica
10 No FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub –Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
60 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover
30 0 20% of total cover 12.0
30 foot radius
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
0 =Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover
0.0 20% of total cover 0.0
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet ) '
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL
Sampling Point. DP3 -Wet B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 5/2 70 7.5YR 4/4 30 C M Silt loam
12-20 1 OYR 5/2 70 7.5YR 4/4 30 C M Silty Clay loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains zLocation PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Hlstosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Hlstic Eplpedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Hlstic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
x Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbrlc Surface (1713) (MLRA 136,122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks
The F3 hydric soil indicator is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site- Reynolds Creek Sewer City/County Winston-Salem - Sampling Date- 8/11/2015
Applicant/Owner City of Winston-Salem State -'NC Sampling Point. DP4 - Upl
Investigator(s) Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range Winston Salem
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc )• Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)• MLRA136 of LRR P Lat. 36.091465° Long -80.378971 ° `Datum NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla loam NWI classification. N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Hydric Sod Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland. Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
Data point is representative of a non -jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Agwtard (133)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
✓
Depth (inches) -
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches).
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks
No indicators of Wetland Hydrology are present.
,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point DP4 - Upl
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liriodendron tulip►fera
30 Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 5 (A),
2 Betula nigra
30 Yes FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 8 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 63% (p[B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
60 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by*
50% of total cover. 30.0
20% of total cover 12.0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 foot radius
FACW species x 2 =
1 Liquidambar styrac►flua
10 Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2 Ulmus americana
10 Yes FACW
FACU species x 4 =
3 Acer rubrum
10 Yes FAC
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
•
30 =Total Cover
_
,
4 -Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
50% of total cover 15.0
20% of total cover 6 0
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5 foot radius )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Chasmanthium latifolium
15 Yes FACU
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Rubus argutus
10 Yes FACU
3 Toxicodendron radicans
10 Yes FAC
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
q Boehmeria cylindrica
5 No FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall.
11
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
40 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover 20.0
20% of total cover. 8.0
30 foot radius
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1
2
3
4 "
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
0 = Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover 0 0
20% of total cover 0.0
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point- DP4 - Upl
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-10 10YR 4/3 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C PL Silt loam
10-20 7.5YR 4/6 90 1 OYR 6/3 10 Silty Clay loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Locatiow PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Hlstosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
No hydric soil indicator are met.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V(
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

' WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site. Reynolds Creek Sewer City/County. Winston-Salem Sampling Date 10/7/2015
Applicant/Owner City of Winston-Salem State NC Sampling Point DP5 - Wet D
Investigator(s) Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township; Range Winston Salem
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope (%) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA136 of LRR P Lat 36.0954320 Long. -80.4039650 Datum NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla loam NWI classification PEM/PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V( No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
I
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Agwtard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches)- 6„
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Indicators of Wetland Hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point. DP5 - wet D
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
20 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 7 (A)
2 Acer rubrum
10 Yes FAC
•
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 9 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 78% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
30 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multi by
50% of total cover 15.0
20% of total cover 6.0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 foot radius
FACW species x 2 =
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
5 Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2 Acer rubrum
5 Yes FAC
FACU species x4=
3 Liriodendron tulip►fera
5 Yes FACU
UPL species x 5 =
4 Ligustrum sinense
5 Yes FACU
Column Totals (A) (B)
5 Salix nigra
5 Yes OBL
Prevalence Index. = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
— 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
25 =Total Cover
r
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover 12.5
20% of total cover
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 5 foot radius )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Polygonum pensylvanicum
50 Yes FACW
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Boehmeria cylindrica
20 Yes FACW
3 Eutrochium maculatum
10 No FACW
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
80 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover 40.0
20% of total cover. 16 0
30 foot radius
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1
2
3.
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
0 = Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover 0.0
20% of total cover 0 0
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL '
Sampling Point: DP5 -Wet D
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 5/3 60 7.5YR 4/6 40 C M sandy loam
3-20 10YR 6/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M Sandy loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes 10( No
Remarks
The F3 hydric soil indicator is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

' WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site- Reynolds Creek Sewer City/County Winston-Salem Sampling Date- 10/7/2015
Applicant/Owner. City of Winston-Salem State NC Sampling Point. DP6 - Upl
Investigator(s)- Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range- Winston Salem
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope (%) 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA). MLRA136 of LRR P Lat: 36.095294° Long: -80.403966° Datum. NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla loam NWI classification N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes No It within a Wetland? Yes No •
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
Data point is representative of a non -jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_, Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
✓
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks.
No indicators of Wetland Hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP6 - Upl
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liriodendron tulipifera
30 Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 4 (A)
2 L►quidambar styraciflua
20 Yes FAC
3 Pinus taeda
20 Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant 7
Species Across All Strata (B)
4 Carya glabra
20 Yes FACU
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 57% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
90 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% of total cover
45.0 20% of total cover 18.0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 foot radius
FACW species x 2 =
1 Acer rubrum
10 Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2 Carp►nus caroliniana
10 Yes FAC
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
20 = Total Cover
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover
100 20% of total cover 4.0
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5 foot radius )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
20 Yes FACU
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2
3
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub –Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11
Herb – All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
20 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover
10.0 20% of total cover 4.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30 foot radius
)
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1.
2
3
4
-
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
0 = Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover
0 0 20% of total cover 0.0
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL '
Sampling Point DP6 - Upl
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 3/3 100 loam
4-20 10YR 5/4 100 Silt loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-— Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
No hydric soil indicator are met.
e
US Army Corps of Engineers
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No V/
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

L ' WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Reynolds Creek Sewer Crty/County Winston-Salem Sampling Date- 10/7/2015
Applicant/Owner- City of Winston-Salem State: NC Sampling Point DP7 - Wet C
Investigator(s) Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range Winston Salem
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc.) Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none). none Slope (%). 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA136 of LRR P Lat• 36.090258° Long- -80.3873620 Datum: NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Chewacla loam NWI classification PEM/PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No i
Remarks
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC -Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches)- 12„
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks
Indicators of Wetland Hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

I � I
N J `
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP7 -Wet C
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
100% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree StratumPlot size 30 foot radius
( ) _
o
/a Cover Species Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Diospyros virginiana
5 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 7 (A)
2 Acer rubrum
5 Yes FAC
3 Salix nigra
5 Yes 'OBL
Total NumberDominant 7
Species Acrosss All Strata (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
15 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% of total cover 7 5
20% of total cover 3.0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 15 foot radius
FACW species x 2 =
1 Diospyros virginiana
5 Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
q
Column Totals (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = -
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
5 = Total Cover
—
4 -Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
50% of total cover 2.5
20% of total cover. 10
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 5 foot radius )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Polygonum pensylvanicum
40 Yes FACW
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2 Boehmena cylindrica
20 Yes FACW
3 Microstegium vimineum
30 Yes FAC
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
q Carex sp.
10 NO
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or'
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height.
8
�
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10.
m) tall
11
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
100 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover. 50 0
20% of total cover. 20.0
30 foot radius
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Woody vine –All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
0 = Total Cover
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover 0.0
20% of total cover 0.0
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
100% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

C
Sampling Point D137 -Wet C
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 5/3 80
7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
silt loam
3-20 10YR 6/2 85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C M
silt loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147) unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks
The F3 hydric soil indicator is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site. Reynolds Creek Sewer City/County: Winston-Salem/ Forsyth Sampling Date- 10/7/2015
Applicant/Owner- City of Winston-Salem State NC Sampling Point DP8 - Upl
Investigator(s)- Thomas Blackwell, PWS Section, Township, Range- Winston Salem
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc.). Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope (%). 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA136 of LRR P Lat 36.0901000 Long -80.3872030 Datum- NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Chewacla loam NWI classification N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks
Data point is representative of a non jurisdictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that cooly)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches) -
✓
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)-
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks -
No indicators of Wetland Hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

1
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point DP8 - Upl
Remarks* (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Less than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
SUS Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Uriodendron tulipifera
30 Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 2 (A)
2 Ulmus alata
20 Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata 5 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 40% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
50 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
50% of total cover: 25 0
20% of total cover 10.0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size- 15 foot radius
FACW species x 2 =
1 Acer rubrum
10 Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2 Carpinus caroliniana
10 Yes FAC
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
_
3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
20 = Total Cover
_
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover 10.0
20% of total cover 4.0
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size 5 foot radius )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
20 Yes FACU
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2
I
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
3
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height
8
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11
Herb –All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
20 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
50% of total cover 100
20% of total cover 4.0
30 foot radius
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
1.
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation /
0 = Total Cover
Present? Yes Noy
50% of total cover 0 0
20% of total cover. 0.0
Remarks* (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Less than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
SUS Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

3olc
Sampling Point* DP8 - Upl
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 3/3 100, Silt loam
2-20 10YR 5/4 100 Silt loam
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
—2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (1`19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes' No
Remarks
No hydric soil indicator are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
March 11, 2016
Jessica Tisdale
HDR
301 North Main Street, Suite 2441
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Reynolds Creek Outfall Improvements, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, ER 16-0306
Dear Ms. Tisdale:
Thank you for your email of February 22, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
tT'lRamona M. Bartos
Location 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax [phone]-6599

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 2, 2016
Ms. Jessica L. Tisdale
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
301 North Main Street, Suite 2441
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27101
Dear Ms. Tisdale:
Subject: Reynolds Creek Outfall Improvement Project; Forsyth County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-16-257
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reviewed the information provided in your letter
dated February 22, 2016. We provide the following comments in accordance with the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided in your correspondence, the proposed project would
replace and upsize portions of the sanitary sewer outfall along 14,400 linear feet of Reynolds
Creek near Lewisville, Forsyth County North Carolina. The proposed construction corridor
would be approximately 30 — 40 feet wide. At this time, you have not provided us with a
detailed design plan or construction schedule for the proposed work.
Federally Protected Species
The Service has no record of federally protected species within or adjacent to the proposed
project boundaries. Moreover, the project site appears to lack suitable habitat for federally
protected species known from Forsyth County, and any "take" that that may result from the
proposed project would be at most, discountable or insignificant. Therefore the Service concurs
with your determination that the proposed project "may affect" but is "not likely to adversely
affect" the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the federally
endangered small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthra). Additionally, you have
determined that the proposed project will have "no effect" on the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). At this time, the Service believes consultation under the Act is complete and we
require no further action. However, please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the Act

L
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service requests that you consider the following comments relevant to the proposed project:
Utility Line Crossings
In the interest of reducing impacts to natural resources, utility crossings (i.e. sewer, gas,
water lines) should be kept to a minimum, and all utility infrastructure (including
manholes) should be kept out of riparian buffer areas. If a utility crossing is necessary,
we recommend that you first consider the use of directional boring. Directional boring
under streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources and riparian buffers.
If directional boring cannot be used, and trenching is determined to be the only viable
method, every effort should be made to ensure that impacts to instream features are
minimized and stable upon completion of the project. Our past experiences with open -
trench crossings, indicate that this technique increases the likelihood for future lateral
movement of the stream (which could undercut or erode around the utility line), and the
correction of such problems could result in costly future maintenance and devastating
impacts to natural resources. Therefore, as much work as possible should be
accomplished in the dry and the amount of disturbance should not exceed what can be
successfully stabilized by the end of the work day. Instream work should avoid the
spring fish -spawning season and should consider forecasted high flow events.
Regardless of the crossing method, all utility lines should cross streams perpendicularly.
We strongly encourage that a qualified biologist monitor the work area until the work is
complete to identify any additional on-site impact minimization measures. The Service
may be available to assist you in this effort.
The work site should be monitored at least every three months for maintenance needs
during the first 24 months and annually thereafter. Moreover, we recommend the
development of a riparian monitoring and maintenance program that would outline
procedures for prompt stabilization of stream banks near the utility crossing (should any
stream bank erosion or destabilization occur) throughout the life of this project.
Special consideration should be made with regards to sewer lines associated, with
crossing areas. These lines should be maintained at all times to prevent hazardous
discharges to land or surface waters and should be constructed of ductile iron or a
material of equal durability.
2

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-16-257.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor