20170082 Ver 1_401 Application_20170117

McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
January 19, 2017
James Lastinger 201 70082
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: US Hwy. 15-501 Greenway Trail Ext.
Village of Pinehurst
Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Lastinger:
Please find enclosed a PCN application for a Nationwide Permit on the US
Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension Project in Moore County, North Carolina.
The PCN application is requesting approval on a NWP #l4 for permanent fill impacts to
wetlands adjoining UT -Nicks Creek. Included with the PCN application is a Rapanos
form and project supporting figures. Copies of the application are being provided to
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water Resources
along with a check for $240. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
MCGILL ASSOCIATES,
/P.AI.
Jolfn C. Vilas
Program Services Manager — Environmental
Enclosures
cc: NCDEQ, DWR — Main Office
Mark Wagner, Village of Pinehurst
Emily Wells, USFWS
Mike Apke, PE, McGill Associates
YASeagate Dashboard 2.0VV-IMSM-Backup 122016\Projects\16.04003 - Pinehurst Pedestrian Trail\CL USACE
468 New Market Blvd. Ste. B ph. 828.386.1920
Boone, NC 28607 f. 828.386.1923 www.mcgillengineers.com

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 2016 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder F1 Assign Action ID Number in ORM FI
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional 11 Government ❑✓ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 63e]:
To provide additional linear footage on a recreational amenity and connect with a future pedestrian
sidewalk network.
4. Property owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Village of Pinehurst -Mark Wagner Parks and Recreation
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: McGill Associates, P.A. - John C. Vilas
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 65b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.218 N. -79.452 W. Greenway proposed to be located in NCDOT right-of-way on the western
side of Hwy. 15-501 between Forrest Drive and Spring Lake Drive.
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 61a]: NCDOT right-of-way
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Moore
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Village of Pinehurst
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 62a]: Nicks Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 62c]: Cape Fear - 03030004
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 14
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
7 Section 10 & 404
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

ry McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
January 19, 2017
James Lastinger
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: US Hwy. 15-501 Greenway Trail Ext.
Village of Pinehurst
Moore County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Lastinger:
Please find enclosed a PCN application for a Nationwide Permit on the US
Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension Project in Moore County, North Carolina.
The PCN application is requesting approval on a NWP #14 for permanent fill impacts to
wetlands adjoining UT -Nicks Creek. Included with the PCN application is a Rapanos
form and project supporting figures. Copies of the application are being provided to
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water Resources
along with a check for $240. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
MCGILL/ASSOCIATES,
/P.A-.
J'O C. Vilas
Program Services Manager — Environmental
Enclosures
cc: NCDEQ, DWR — Main Office
Mark Wagner, Village of Pinehurst
Emily Wells, USFWS
Mike Apke, PE, McGill Associates
YASeagate Dashboard 2.0VV-IS\SM-Backup 122016\Projects\16.04003 - Pinehurst Pedestrian Trail\CL USACE
468 New Market Blvd. Ste. B ph. 828.386.1920
Boone, NC 28607 f. 828.386.1923 www.mcgillengineers.com

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 1 of 15
January 2017
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1d.
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
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
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:
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
2b.
County:
Moore
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Village of Pinehurst
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
7 -
7
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
NCDOT Right -of -Way DEQ -WA TFg
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
N/A FFER PERMITTING
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Brad Bass, Division Agent
3d.
Street address:
293 Olmsted Blvd., Ste. 11A
3e. City, state, zip:
Pinehurst, NC 28374
3f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 1 of 15
January 2017

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Village of Pinehurst
4b. Name:
Mark Wagner, Parks and Recreation Director
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Parks and Recreation
4d. Street address:
395 Magnolia Rd.
4e. City, state, zip:
Pinehurst, NC 28374
4f. Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
John C. Vilas
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
McGill Associates, P.A.
5c. Street address:
468 New Market Blvd. Ste. B
5d. City, state, zip:
Boone, NC 28607
5e. Telephone no.:
[phone]
5f. Fax no.:
[phone]
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 2 of 15
January 2017

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
NCDOT Right -of -Way
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.218 Longitude: - 79.452
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
N/A (NCDOT right-of-way)
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to proposed project:
Nicks Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -III
2c. River basin: map is available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adMia/maps/
Cape Fear
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 3 of 15
January 2017

3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project is located within the NCDOT Baht -of -way along the western edge of US Highway 15-501 in the town limits
of Pinehurst NC The project site consists of an existina cleared 25 -foot wide utility corridor between Forest Drive and
Sprina Lake Drive overhead power lines and Moore County sewer lines are located within the utility corridor. UT -Nicks
Creek flows north through the lower portion of the project site: UT -Nicks Creek enters a corrugated metal pipe mid -way
throuah the project site with flow conveyed beneath Hwy. 15-501 to the east. Four wetland units are located within the
project site An existina section of areenwav trail extends south from Forrest Drive: a paved parking area is located off
Forrest Drive near the intersection with Hwy. 15-501 that serves the areenwav trail.
Areas surroundina the project site include sinale-family residential properties.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Four wetland units were delineated within the project site totalina 0.6 -acres.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 640 -linear feet of intermittent tributary to Nicks Creek flows throuah a portion of the project site.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The US Hiahwav 15-501 areenwav extension will provide additional linear footaae on the Village's areenwav trail
systems the areenwav extension will connect with an existina areenwav trail and a future pedestrian sidewalk.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Village of Pinehurst proposes to extend its greenwav trail system along the western side of US Hiahwav 15-501: the
areenwav currently ends at Forrest Drive. The proposed areenwav extension will begin at an existina parking area on
the north side of Forrest Drive. The areenwav extension will generally follow an existing cleared utility corridor, inside
the NCDOT Baht -of way on Hwv 15-501 and connect with Sprina Lake Drive 2.860 linear feet to the north The proposed
areenwav extension will consist of a 6 -foot wide trail covered in asphalt alona steeper sections and aravel screenings
throuah flatter sections The areenwav will have 1 -foot wide shoulders that taper at a 3:1 ratio to surroundina arade.
The proposed areenwav extension will cross UT -Nicks Creek at three locations (see Plans). Each of the stream
crossinas will be completed by wooden boardwalk Boardwalk decking will be elevated above bankfull elevation at each
stream crossing Wooden boardwalks will be 8 -feet wide and constructed of pressure treated wood Poured in place
concrete footers will be used to support the boardwalk spaced at 10 -foot intervals. No live or fresh concrete will come
into contact with streams durina construction. Concrete footers will be set outside of the normal flow streambank width
(see Stream Crossing Detail) Construction and maintenance of boardwalk stream crossings will not result in temporary
or permanent stream impacts Disturbed areas of stream bank from boardwalk construction will be stabilized following
work with the installation of erosion control blankets and application of erosion control seed mix and native riparian seed
mix (ERNST seed mix ERNMX-308 or eauivalent).
The proposed areenwav extension will include trails alona the edaes of three wetland units (see Plans). Permanent
wetland impacts from proposed areenwav construction will total 0.09 -acres: 0.03 -acres are herbaceous wetlands (W-1
W-2 and W-4) and 0.06 -acres are forested wetlands (W-3 and W-5). Wetland impacts are based on a 10 -foot wide
areenwav footprint and a 15 -foot wide permanently maintained cleared corridor throuah forested wetlands. Wetland
impacts are less than the 0.1 -acre mitigation threshold however impacts to forested wetlands will be mitigated No
mitigation banks are available for the protect HUC. A % acre of wetland mitigation credit (riparian) will be purchased
throuah the NC Division of Mitiaation Services (DMS) usina a 2:1 ratio for proposed forested wetland impacts: see
attached approval letter.
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 4 of 15
January 2017

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or
State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including
all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: A JD confirmation meeting took place on November 141.-
James Lastinger with USACE approved wetland boundaries and
streams as depicted on the Existina Conditions Map.
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of
determination was made?
®Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Sean Martin
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other: McGill Associates, P.A.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
11-14-2016 — USACE site confirmation meeting; a preliminary JD approval letter was not received.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
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.
The Village of Pinehurst adopted a Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan in 2015 that outlines future improvement and/or
construction of pedestrian -friendly transportation corridors throughout the Village. The Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
includes the currently proposed greenway extension from Forrest Drive to Spring Lake Drive. The Comprehensive
Pedestrian Plan includes a separate greenwav extension north of Spring Lake Drive to Juniper Lake Road. The Spring
Lake Drive to Juniper Lake Drive extension is considered a low priority project, and there are currently no plans in place
to complete this extension. If the Village decides to pursue the Spring Lake Drive to Juniper Lake Drive extension. the
Village will complete necessary due diligence and comply with cumulative analysis on 404/401 permitting issues. The
Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan also proposes to connect a sidewalk project to the currently proposed areenwav
extension at Spring Lake Drive utilizing the Village's rights-of-way. The sidewalk project is currently in the design phase
and is anticipated to be ready for construction in the spring of 2017. No anticipated 404/401 permitting concerns with
the proposed sidewalk project.
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 5 of 15
January 2017

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
I. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ❑ Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 SPOT
Fill
Riverine Swamp
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.01
Forest
® No
❑ DWQ
W2 SPOT
Fill
Riverine Swamp
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.01
Forest
®No
❑ DWQ
W3 SPOT
Fill and
Riverine Swamp
® Yes
® Corps
0.01
conversion
Forest
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 SPOT
Fill
Riverine Swamp
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.01
Forest
® No
❑ DWQ
W5 SPOT
Fill and
Riverine Swamp
® Yes
® Corps
0.05
conversion
Forest
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland Impacts
0.09
2h. Comments: Wetland impacts W-1 W-2 W-4 are in an existina Geared utility corridor• wetland areas are maintained as
herbaceous due to overhead poweriines. Wetland impacts W-3 and W-5 includes fill from areenwav construction and
maintaining a permanently cleared corridor through forested wetlands.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -(PER)
) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 6 of 15
January 2017

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P❑T
02 [:]POT
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: Permanent impacts from rock edge and temporary impacts from erosion control measures.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
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:
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 7 of 15
January 2017

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below.
If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then
you MUST fill out Section D
of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse
❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
131 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 8 of 15
January 2017

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project has been designed to minimize adverse effects to the environment through the consideration of three
alternatives. Several limitations were encountered during alternatives analysis. The greenway is constrained by the
right-of-way limits along the western project boundary and the road fill slope off US Hwy. 15-501 along the eastern
project boundary: wetland boundaries in the proiect site span the lenoth between the edge of the right-of-way and road
fill slope. The first alternative, which involves constructing boardwalks across streams and all wetlands, will result in no
permanent stream or wetland impacts. The first alternative is not practical for the Village of Pinehurst due to its financial
obligation with the high per foot cost of building boardwalks. The first alternative is considered not feasible. The second
alternative entirely follows the utility corridor with areenway trails passing through the middle of wetland areas. The
second alternative will reduce the overall boardwalk lenoth and project costs, however wetland impacts are increased.
The second alternative is feasible from a cost perspective, but the adverse environmental impacts are not minimized to
the maximum extent practical. In discussing the second alternative with the USACE, it was agreed that the trail layout
should be shifted to reduce the total wetland impact area. The third alternative, which represents the proposed layout
beina permitted, moves the trail to the outer edges of wetland areas and outside of the cleared utility corridor. The third
alternative reduces wetland impacts compared with alternative two. The third alternative minimizes adverse effects to
the environment and makes the project feasible for the Village.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Silt fencing to be installed between trail construction areas and streams/ wetlands. Disturbed riparian areas and stream
banks will be stabilized and seeded with native riparian herbaceous mix. No live or curing concrete will come into contact
with Waters of the US. Boardwalks will be built so that decking will be elevated above flood elevations (bankfull height)
at stream crossings. Boardwalk supports will not be built within the normal flow streambank width: support structures
will not impede normal flow conditions.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
® Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ® Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
®Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 9 of 15
January 2017

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:
0.12 acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments: 0.06 -acres of forested riparian wetlands will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio.
5. Complete If Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
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.
❑ 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:
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 10 of 15
January 2017

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent
to protected riparian buffers identified
Yes No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer
Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan
included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 11 of 15
January 2017

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent
imperviousness of this project?
4%. The Baht -of -way area alona the western side of 15-501 between Forrest
Drive and Sarins Lake Drive is approx. 9.5 -acres. The amount of paved trail
throuah the proiect site is approx. 0.4 -acres.
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 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
Project will not increase site imoerviousness over 24%. and the project does not contain drainage areas that are areater
than 24% impervious. The project will address Stormwater manaaement with the followina desian and implementation
aspects: no Stormwater conveyances will be built that discharae to stream or wetlands: Stormwater runoff will sheet
flow off paved areenwav sections into adioinina vegetated buffers.
The proposed areenwav will parallel UT -Nicks Creek for approximately 640 -linear feet within the 2.860 -linear foot proiect
site. Approximately 380 -linear feet of the proposed areenwav will be located outside of the 30 -foot veaetated setback.
Approximately 260 -linear feet of the proposed paved areenwav trail will be built between 20' and 30' from UT -Nicks
Creek top -of -bank. encroachina into the 30 -foot vegetated setback.
The 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension Project is seekina an "allowable" use for paved sections located within the 30 -
foot vegetated setback since there are no practical altematives to the proposed encroachment. In section D.1a of this
PCN application under Avoidance and Minimization, three alternatives are discussed. The third altemative and current
proposed plan moves the areenwav away from wetlands and UT -Nicks Creek towards the base of the fill slope off Hwy.
15-501. This shift represents the maximum amount the areenwav can be moved without arading into the road fill slope.
Altematively, the areenwav cannot be built on the opposite side of UT -Nicks Creek since that area is outside of the
NCDOT right-of-way and is privately owned property. Building the greenwav completely of non -pervious boardwalk
throuah all wetland and stream sections is cost prohibitive and not feasible for the Villaae.
Paved areenwav sections will consist of a 6 -foot wide trail and 1 -ft. wide grassed shoulders. The footprint of the path
will avoid woody veaetation removal to the maximum extent practical.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of
the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Certified Local Government
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWO 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is
this project?
Moore
3b. Which of the following locally-
implemented Stormwater management
programs apply (check all that apply):
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
® Other: None
3c. Has the approved Stormwater
Management Plan with proof of approval
been attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 12 of 15
January 2017

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-
❑ HOW
implemented Stormwater management
❑ ORW
programs apply (check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
NA
® Other: None
4b. Has the approved Stormwater
Management Plan with proof of approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
been attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Yes ❑ No
meet the appropriate requirements?
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal
❑ Yes ❑ No
requirements been met?
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 13 of 15
January 2017

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?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
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
® 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 proposed 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension Project represents one section of the Villaae
of Pinehurst
Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan: there are additional sections of the plan that will be completed in the future (see
Section 6. Phased Project Plans). However when all sections of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan are completed,
the entire pedestrian walkway system will represent a single and complete project. The completed pedestrian
walkway
system will not support future development opportunities or additional development that could negatively
impact
downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No sewage disposal associated with this proiect.
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NWP #14
Page 14 of 15
January 2017

S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
® Yes ❑ No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
® Yes ❑ No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
US Fish and Wildlife Service - https•//www.fws.nov/raleiah/species/Cntylistimoore.html. The oroiect was scoped and
discussed with Emily Wells out of the Raleigh Field Office. A letter of concurrence was received (see attached) on
December 9 2016 indicating that the project is expected to have minimal adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources
The USFWS Is reauestino a site visit prior to oroiect commencement to assess trees that are planned for removal that
may be used as red -cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. If the site visit finds that there are no active pine trees within
the oroiect area then the Service will at that time agree that the proposed greenwav extension and associated tree
removal would not be likely to adversely affect the red -cockaded woodpecker.
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?
hftp://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/products/biogeography/­sa-efh
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
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
❑ Yes ® No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
http://ais ncdcr oovthoowebi Proiect site is approximately 4100 -feet north of the Pinehurst Historic District Boundary.
The greenway extension project is not anticipated to impact historic or cultural resources. If prehistoric cultural resources
are encountered during construction work will cease and consultation with tribal historic representatives will commence.
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:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
http•//fris nc.aov/fds/Home.aspx?ST=NC. FEMA floodplain panel 8563.
John C. Vilas
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
1/19/2017
Date
US Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Extension
NW P #14
Page 15 of 15
January 2017

McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT COUNTY:
PROPERTY PIN:
PROPERTY OWNER:
PROPERTY OWNER TELEPHONE:
US HWY 15-501 GREENWAY TRAIL EXTENSION
MOORE
0(_ ZOT 714iOF WA
Ai b0
O/ A
PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVE: JJ 0V WAGS t VILi AAE Or- PikZHU457
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
John C. Vilas , of McGill Associates P.A.
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's/Representative's Address (if different than property above):
395 M9)ioLIA'oAb
►�i>�E1(u�5 �L
7--437q
Telephone: °ilo 29S-2�i�
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature:
a
Date: 16-2,-7- Y6
E n v i r o n m e n t a l • P l a n n i n g F i n a n c e
McGill Assoc iales, P.A. • 468 New Markel Blvd. Ste. B, Boone, North Carolina 28607
Office: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

61uyP�i��
c 4
f�
4
o ftli l n
•F
ky
r, 1YinrilAU way
Ra <.
M+�C.
Z -
�a .
�o
c
O
� '1.1fi19plr CiA'
n
P =
1 �
h
ti � � � �dptebury RV
v
c
9
otopKRidgyWd SL
„ t'• sh ue =q
c 2
t _ourte-f
Cel
` ook Dr
iy Loye Rd
r
y<� JuhrP� J
r
O
V
Pro�oct Bo Chdary
E'g Lake
Meyr,
Tayl ortown T
w
d14F x PG
U `Q Or
Pa
ar d
L 3 , cP
L oaU�ear Drp
Yanfwn Rff
t,+dtm n
Io
4
,Lp !wV a6tidi RA E.�
n
0
� a
1 �
t.tltlid 'F• A4,
cf�a 4 ey kp
aft Pinehurst
e 5.
� � u
AA'' IA47
1 �1" q. o
we
w
+o suoL
0.5 0.251 ~ 0.5 Miles
rur°a Rd A r k t
c
0
Magnol'T
C"
IRYIet SI rs611 NN n��I
E Go rutty Clut
7"
2c
ph3S y Ari°'
IJ akh
it
�`nu Hraryp ey^`i FmehuJ Y A
° P,Wn m
Namc..rU o
�r•
Q
F,Ys.rrws! Nay
PuM.n„rsa
R�s;n c � tkd
u
41q, Rd
-R.", (Olt
S41"
7 V' s�Orat�ntp� ..
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS.. IntermWIncrement P Corp.,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, M�TL,,Esn China (Hong Kong), Esrir(Thailand),
TomTom, Mapmyindia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and th'e GIS
User Community
J-0 �
M. D "p°
DEBIGNED BY' l{X%
U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501
McGm*
0
GREENWAY TRAIL EXTENSION
--
LOCATION MAPS
LOCATION
AEVEYY._
00N6T"—
VILLAGE OF PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA
ASSOCIATES
"""'E'
ENGI NEER ING -PLANN ING-FIN ANCE
"a•f.Ef BLVD. STEB 800.'.E "C 2f60� Px.�Winsrol0

1 v
Ciro
r
e,
7\" V
t
•
0 A,
j f
llama r
r
LISGS TOPOGRAPHIC ❑UADRANGLE: SOUTHERN PINES, NC
j" %%x%%%% -
-E OCT.21 -6
DESIG ED BY, %%%U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC —
-G'Y- GREENWAY TRAIL EXTENSION Mc GM
MAP sll R= VILLAGE OF PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA A S S 0 C I A T E S
FILENAME
ENGINEER TNG PLANNING FINANCE

ati
Awe,
f
VON
Va
CO%JC
01
11-4 pi
'40
t
CaB
Pu
Tyler Way
iz valid at this scale.
V,—i, —f7o

Soil Map—Moore County, North Carolina
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
�
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Very Stony Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
1*
'
Wet Spot
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
—.a
Soil Map Unit Lines
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
13
Soil Map Unit Points
ti
Other
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
.�
Special Line Features
Special
Point Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
U
Blowout
water Features
measurements.
Streams and Canals
Borrow Pit
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Transportation
Web Soil Survey URL: hftp:/twebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Clay Spot
+44
Rails
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
0
Closed Depression
-0
Interstate Highways
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Gravel Pit
US Routes
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Gravelly Spot
Major Roads
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
Landfill
calculations of distance or area are required.
Local Roads
?h
Lava Flow
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
Background
the version date(s) listed below.
Marsh or swamp
M
Aerial Photography
Soil Survey Area: Moore County, North Carolina
^�
Mine or Quarry
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 24, 2015
®
Miscellaneous Water
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
Perennial Water
or larger.
f
Rock Outcrop
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 11, 2011—Apr 2,
2011
+
Saline Spot
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Sandy Spot
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
a
,..
Severely Eroded Spot
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
iN
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
jif
Sodic Spot
t)SpA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/21/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map—Moore County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Moore County, North Carolina (NC125)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CaB
Candor sand, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
1.4
12.3%
VaD
Vauduse loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes
9.9
87.7%
Totals for Area of Interest
11.3
100.0%
LSM Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/21/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

Photo One: View of the existing par-ing area off Forrest
Drive Gi c[�grolbd❑ ParLIng lot serves the existing
greenway on the far side of Forrest Drive. Proposed
greenway extension from Forrest Drive north to Spring
LaDa Drive will ❑egin at this paring area.
Photo Two: View to the north along cleared [iility
corridor. Proposed greenway extension will primarily
follow the cleared corridor which is located within the
US Hwy. 15-501 right-of-way. US Hwy. 15-501 can ❑s
seen on the far right of photo Clehind trees.
Photo Three: View of UT -Nicer Cree❑at Crossing One.
UT-Nic -s Cree❑ is an intermittent stream with an
average Dan❑width of 6 -feet. The stream crossing will
❑e completed ,-, ❑oardwalELapproximately 25 -feet to
cross the stream and avoid fringe wetland areas within
the cleared lility corridor.
Photo Foa: View to the so❑th of the eastern edge of
Wetland Unit'B' where the proposed greenway
extension will ❑e ❑-11t. The proposed greenway layoit is
soh that the paved trail follows the edge of the wetland
❑b[)ndary and the toe of Hwy. 15-501 fill slope.
US HIGHWAY 15-50OMcGifll
£61ONEDB9 "" GREENWATRAIL EXTENSION
M PHOTO SHEET ONEX- e
M — VILLAGE OF PINEHURST
a�,E,
��E� A S S O C I A T E S
MENGINEERING PLANNING FINANCE
OORECOUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIRM LICENSE 8 GUM

Photo Five: View of location for Crossing Two on
UT-NicC_8 Creeq to oe crossed Cly ooardwal❑ Average
stream width is 6 -feet.
Photo Seven: View of metal cL1vert that conveys flow
on UT -Nice CreeDfrom the pro ect site =eneath US
Hwy. 15-501.
Photo Six: View of location for Crossing Three on
UT-NicL� Creeq to [-Je crossed Ey Eoardwal❑ Average
steam width is 6 -feet.
Photo Eight: View of proposed greenway extension
terminus at Spring Lam Road.
US HIGHWAY 15-501
GREENWAY TRAIL EXTENSION
VILLAGE OF PINEHURST
MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
McGill
A S S O C I ATE S
ENGINEERING PLANNING FINANCE
p%LE —1},X16
in
CESIGNED By %%%
IT
PHOTO SHEET TWO
-
m_
Photo Six: View of location for Crossing Three on
UT-NicL� Creeq to [-Je crossed Ey Eoardwal❑ Average
steam width is 6 -feet.
Photo Eight: View of proposed greenway extension
terminus at Spring Lam Road.
US HIGHWAY 15-501
GREENWAY TRAIL EXTENSION
VILLAGE OF PINEHURST
MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
McGill
A S S O C I ATE S
ENGINEERING PLANNING FINANCE

Mitigation Services
ENV]RONNENTAL QUALITY
Mark Wagner
Village of Pinehurst
395 Magnolia Road
Pinehurst, NC 28374
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
December 9, 2016
Expiration of Acceptance: June 9, 2017
Project: U.S. Highway 15-501 Greenway Trail Ext. County: Moore
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the
table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation
program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must
also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with
the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and
payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an
applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts that may require
compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned
to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
River CU Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer II
Basin (8 -digit HUC)
(Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Ri arian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh
Impact Cape Fear 03030004 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 n
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation
will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC
02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: John Vilas, agent
Sincerely,
James Stanfill
Asset nagement Supervisor
State of North Carolina ' EnvirOntnental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center i Raleigh. NC 27699-1652 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 9, 2016
Mr. Sean Martin
McGill Associates, P.A.
468 New Market Boulevard, Suite B
Boone, NC 28607
Re: Hwy 15-501 Greenway Extension/ TAILS#2017-1-01251 Moore County
Dear Mr. Martin:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project. The project, based on the description in the applicant's Species Evaluation
Summary and other information, is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and
wildlife resources when the below conservation actions are applied.
The 2,860 linear foot greenway expansion project is located on the western side of Hwy 15-501
between Forest Drive and Spring Lake Drive, North of the Village of Pinehurst, in Moore
County, North Carolina. it will consist of a combination of aspaved phalt ppathways, wooden
elevated boardwalks. The project under review is expected to have minor impacts to wetlands
and therefore will go through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permitting process.
This review is taking place prior to the Pre -Construction Notification process with the Corps.
The supporting project documents describe this site as an existing cleared utility corridor within a
NCDOT right of way with the surrounding vegetation consisting of a longleaffloblolly pine,
mixed shrub, and various hardwood species composition. The majority of the parcel appears to
be upland, but there are wetlands associated with the floodplains of the streams running near the
property. Buffers should be retained wherever possible on any water and wetland feature, and
native vegetation should be replanted if the natural buffer must be disturbed where possible
outside of the maintained utility and gmenway corridor. There are currently numerous
subdivisions and golf courses near the proposed project.
McGill Associates has provided supplemental information regarding onsite findings for streams,
wetlands, and the red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Potentially suitable habitat was
found to be present on portions of the site and in adjacent wooded areas, and the red -cockaded
woodpecker is known to be present in an active cluster within /2mile from the project site. The
majority of the project area is cleared and is already a maintained corridor, with very few large
(greater than 8 -inches diameter at breast height; DBH) pine trees present. McGill Associates'

initial field review did not indicate that red -cockaded woodpecker cavity trees were located
onsite or immediately adjacent to this project, but there was an observation of red -cockaded
woodpeckers foraging in the pines adjacent to this project boundary. Given the distance between
the known adjacent active cluster and project area and potentially suitable onsite vegetation
composition, the Service will request an additional follow up site visit prior to the project
commencing to assess any large pines that are planned for removal once the final design is
complete. If this site visit confirms that there are still no active pine trees within the project area
that need to be removed then the Service will at that time agree that the proposed greenway
extension and associated tree removal would not be likely to adversely affect the red -cockaded
woodpecker using Clusters SOPI 46 and SOPI47. If new information is found regarding
potential impacts based upon the final tree removal design plan, then additional consultations
will need to address those potential impacts.
The Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have on aquatic
species in the general area Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation.
Therefore, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to
aquatic species, including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and
erosion control measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and
approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to
construction. Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the
construction site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend
maintaining natural, vegetated buffers on all streams, creeks and wetlands adjacent to the project
site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at http://www.ftvs.gov/raleigh to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species not consulted upon and discussed in this letter,
you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys, survey
methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including
consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that
might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no
beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not
required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is
prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps
leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment,
habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
In accordance with the Act, and based on the information provided for the red -cockaded
woodpecker, and other available information, it initially appears the action as a whole is not
likely to adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the Act. We

believe that the requirements of section 7 (ax2) of the Act have been partially satisfied for this
project, and will be considered completely satisfied with a final determination regarding the site
visit for red -cockaded woodpecker mentioned above. Please remember that obligations under the
ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Emily J. Wells at (919) 856-
4520, extension 25.
Sincerely,
Pete Jamin
Fiel upervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

EXISTING OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC UNE
-- -----s---
I "
I
EXIsnNc
EXISTING WOODEN FENCE
(TO REM79N)
WETLAND TABLE
WATER METER /
�
I}
A
Q
/
0.09 -acres
D
0.02 -acres
E
p
//
I /
1
z H
//
N 4 Of
/
I
/
1 /
/
1 I
I
I I
I '
I
I
I
I
/
PIN# 856310458561
/
I
I
GOUDARZI, KAMRANCIMAN
I
GOUDARZI, TONIA
e
I e I I
PIN# 856310458898
I
UNIT 4 LOT 157 PH 1
WETLAND TABLE
UNIT
AREA
A
0.06 -acres
B
0.09 -acres
D
0.02 -acres
E
0.41 -acres
-----------
z
I \
I `
I `
\ DGH MANAGEMENT, LLC
PIN# 85631 D45 720
UNIT 9 LOT 72 PH I
I `
CIMAN, ROBERT \
CIMAN, ALEXIS
IPIN# 856310458766
UNIT 9 LOT 73 PH I \
I
I
I \�
I \I
I \
PLAN
.w o Is w 40 90
GRAPI RC SCALE
EXISTING
U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 �w
WETLAND "D"
_-
/
RHETSON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
/
I PIN# 856310459600
I
' I
UNIT 9 LOT 71 PH I
/
UNIT 9 LOT 67 PH 1 I
Q I ;
Lo W
I
� x
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/NCDOT
I
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
1
I /
1
w
z
I RHODES, MARY
I
PIN# 656310458151
I /
I UNIT 9 LOT 65 PH I
I
1 /
/
1 I
I
I I
I '
I
I
I
JACKSON AND SONS HOMES, LLC
/
PIN# 856310458561
/
UNIT 9 LOT 70 PH I
>
I
RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE
e
I e I I
U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 150' RIGHT-OF-WAY
0
0
m
Q
Z
J ;
EXISTING
WETLAND „E„
I FLOW P-- - - . . & _ . .Baas -a.
UT -NI( KS CREEK-- '
II I I•
1 UT -NICKS CREEK
FLOWS FROM FFSITE
I
m
n
51 ARUSCAVAGE, PHILIP J & JANET C
MARY I C m
D458
65 PIH 1 I N# 856310458033
UINIT 9 LOT 64 PH I / 1 I
/ PIN#8OLLIE
56314448925
( I NIIT 9 LOTA63 PH II TUCKER, STEPHEN
' JOHNSTON, REBECCA BACHTELL, DONOVAN G IN REALTY, LLC
I I I PIN# 856314448710
/ I PIN#856BACHTELL, LAURA B 314448826 I PIN# 856314448728 UNIT 9 LOT BO PH I
I UNIT 9 LOT 62 PHI UNIT 9 LOT 61 PH I I
I
I I
IUP
I I
I
TWO ONE FOUR NINETY-EIGHT I
NINETY NOVA SCOTIA LIMITED I
PIN# 856310458472
UNIT 9 LOT 69 PH I
I
I I
I CROPLEY, BRYAN & MARGARET I
PIN# 856310958375
UNIT 9 LOT 68 PM 1 I
I
I I
I
13ARKLEY LANE
NC Hwy. 15-501 (150' R/W)
WETLAND "C" DETERMINED TO NOT
MEET THE CRITERIA OF A WETLAND
BASED ON THE USACE JD
CONFIRMATION SITE INSPECTION AND
THE WETLAND BOUNDARY HAS BEEN
REMOVED FROM THE DELINEATION.
150' RIGHT-OF-WAYNC HWY. 15_501 (150' g/p)
EXISTING
WETLAND "E"
W
Z
^�. .—
UT/ -NICKS CREEK
------------
------------
---
EXISTING
WETLAND "B"
I
'
Z
'
WATKINS, W BARRY
I
' I
PIN# 856310458277
w
UNIT 9 LOT 67 PH 1 I
Q I ;
Lo W
I
� x
1 JUDIK, MARY ROWE
I
PIN# 858310458169
1
'
UNIT 9 LOT 66 PHI
1
w
z
I RHODES, MARY
I
PIN# 656310458151
I
I UNIT 9 LOT 65 PH I
I
'
/
1 I
I
I I
I '
I
I
I
------------
------------
---
EXISTING
WETLAND "B"
I
'
Z
ZQ
-
W#w
`0
0
w
ARU
Q I ;
Lo W
I
� x
U
�
t
W
Q
O
z
c~n
---
UP
C� }
= Q
w
z
I
�LL
Z
W
W
LL
O
w
(D
Q
I
II
EXISTING PR�PERTY
OVERHE D I
I ELECTRI LINE
LA_N
J_
LINE/NCDOT I
0
>
V)
z
O
0
z
O
CD
z
I—
U)
X
W
SHEET
-
-
L �4.;
-
W#w
------s---- ------s-----s----
__--- .
----------s-----s----
t
----E 3
---r L UP \\ I
o
---
UP
\�
i
I
I
I EXISTING EXISTING DITCH--/,
ITCN �# I
I
II
EXISTING PR�PERTY
OVERHE D I
I ELECTRI LINE
w
LINE/NCDOT I
I l a
I
RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE
e
I e I I
1
I
„
n
n FRANKLIN, JAMES I
FRANKLIN, SANDRA I n
DGH MANAGEMENT, LLC PIN# 856314448330 I u
}
I I
I ECKARD, CYNTHIA WEST
PIN# 856314448436
VILLAGE PINEHURST I
PIN# 856314448338 1 ]
I UNIT 9 LOT 56 PH I UNIT 9 LOT 55 PH I V
I I
I
I
I
I
I
CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS E 8
UUNIT 9 LOT 57 PHI
56
PIN# 85631448 PH I
UNIT 9 LOT 58 PH 1
I
I \
I
PATRICIA D I
I
I
I \ <
I
I
63144
PIN# 856314448621
UNIT 9 LOT 59 PHI I
I
I \
I I \
II
II
I
I n\\
I I
I
V)
z
O
0
z
O
CD
z
I—
U)
X
W
SHEET

NC Hwy. 15-501 (150' R/R)
UT—NICKS CREEK
EXISTING
WETLAND "B"
0
N
Q
u FLOW
5
u
ws----
UP
'--EXISTING OVERHEAD
iv i i ELECTRIC LINE
I �
UT -NICKS CREEK
SARA
cc/OBARBARAJ
FLOWS OFFSITE 3TEVENS
I PIN# 8856314448065 w
UNIT 9 LOT 107 PH I
I I
I
n
VAN HOUTEN, ROBERT E VAN
I G II HOUTEN ANITA R PIN# 856314448143 I SVKES CONSTRUCTION CO, INC
I G UNIT 9 LOT 106 PH 1 I
I PIN# 856314438956
UNIT 9 LOT 108 PH I
I I
I I
I I I
I\ BARKLEY LANE
1
NC Hwy. 15-501 (150' R/w)
U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 150' RIGHT—OF—WAY PLAN
w o 1s w 4o vo
GRAPHIC SCALE
EXISTING
WETLAND "A"
/ t:l
EXISTING MOORE COUTY
_ PUBLIC UTILITIES SEWS
/
UT -NICKS CREEK \ CURRY, MICHAEL
\ CURRY, BARBARA
FLOWS FROM OFFSITE PIN1856314438793
/ \ RIEK, ALBERT 1 \ UNIT 9 LOT 111 PH I
RIEK, VICKI OVERMAN
PIN#856314438871 \
UNIT 9 LOT 110 PHI \
/ u \
w \BOYD, MICHAEL L ` \
/ BOYD. MARINA R.
PIN# 856314438808
/ UNIT 9 LOT 109 PH I
U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 150' RIGHT-OF-WAY
( I
II� I I
8 I
I I EjI I
I .N. ^. 1
I I I
I YPIN# 85 314439520 I
PIN# 856314439520
I WOODWORTH, JEFF I 1 UNIT 9 LOT 114 PH I
ZEIGLER, ASHLEY I HAPPEN, CHRISTIAN 8 EMMA I
PIN# 85831443%O5 I PIN# 056314439507
I UNIT 9 LOT 712 PH I UNIT 9 LOT 113 PH I I
I
I
I I I
CURTIS LANE
WETLAND TABLE
UNIT
AREA
A
0.06 -acres
B
0.09 -acres
D
0.02 -acres
E
0.41 -acres
a
e,
® R
u
a
EXISTING PROPERTY
LINE/NCDOT RIGHT—OF—WAY2UP
LINE
M /
I *0
\
I EXISTING OVERHEAD
a
u~1
IELECTRIC LINE
z
I
i
L=)
I
I
P -EAT, GEORGE H.
I
I
B KATHRYN K. ,
i
EXISTING ASPHALT
I
PIN#856314439430
FOREST DRIVE TRAILHEAD
UNIT 9 LOT 115 PH I
I
PARKING LOT
I
/
I
VILLAGE OF PINEHURST
)
/
I
I
N#
I856314439129I
P'_
)
I/
UNIT 9 LOT 130 PH
�
MAHOOD, PATRICIA E.
)
PIN# 856314438373
UNIT 9 LOT 116 PH I
( I
II� I I
8 I
I I EjI I
I .N. ^. 1
I I I
I YPIN# 85 314439520 I
PIN# 856314439520
I WOODWORTH, JEFF I 1 UNIT 9 LOT 114 PH I
ZEIGLER, ASHLEY I HAPPEN, CHRISTIAN 8 EMMA I
PIN# 85831443%O5 I PIN# 056314439507
I UNIT 9 LOT 712 PH I UNIT 9 LOT 113 PH I I
I
I
I I I
CURTIS LANE
WETLAND TABLE
UNIT
AREA
A
0.06 -acres
B
0.09 -acres
D
0.02 -acres
E
0.41 -acres
0
al
w
Z
J
E -
EXISTING PROPERTY
LINE/NCDOT
RIGHa—OF—WAY LINE/
POTEAT, GEORGE H.
8 KATHRYN K.
PIN# 856314439430
UNIT 9 LOT 115 PH I
0
)D, PATRICIA E
,...856314438373
UNIT 9 LOT 116 PH 1
Z zl
``O J
V
_ J cr I
c:)
Z U I
� W =
I
� I
X ��
W z
Q U)
Q z
Z
LL
LLO
W Lu
�wQ
LL J
SHEET
�A

PLAN --"'---
+u o I., w so x -4_-_
EXISTING OVERHEAD + O
ELECTRIC LINE N GRAPHICSCALE I INCH = 30 FEET U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 "---
EXISTING WOODEN FENCE Oo PROPOSED 6' WIDE GRAVEL SCREENINGS GREENWAY STA. 17+33 150' RIGHT_OF-(WAY
(TO REMAIN) END PROPOSED BOARDWALK
o BEGIN 6' GRAVEL SCREENINGS GREENWAY
CENTERLINE OF EXISTING TRIBUTARY
00 DW4
W3 \ -.
p
,j1A
>��
,og7 // .L UP_ yea ---- -auna„n.-, s�-_._.y=y _.� �r�..nam Dwl - _ DW5 ill ro
0
DWEXIST6 Fl
' l NG
EW4
WATER
METER ?abEXISTING
- s
WETLAND
U�,-- ` :.a,-' �� WETLAND 'EVC
i I r l c --ti EXISTING
WETLAND •DW^Y%. - ..
-=#er �F -�_\_- -_s• �� _ °• Ewl
II STA. j0+00'BEGIN DISH MANAGEMENT, LLC
—
NADPROPOSED 6/GRAVEL - y3
PIN# 856310459720 " U _
SCREENINGS GY/2EENWAY I I UNIT 9 LOT 72 PH1 �A --s
o I / ( I RHETSON DEVELOPMENT, LLC F 1 \ ---8- = �'`�^ •" •-- �•
I CIMAN ROBERT
I / I PIN# 856310458768
PIM 856310459600 / / EW2 -� �� A
I ALEXIS UNIT 9 LOT 71 PHI --•
FUTURE CONCRETE I _ _ a
/ SIDEWALK BY OTHERS UNIT 9 LOT 73 PH I
(NOTA THIS CONTRACT) I \ EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/NCDOT / EW3 ° +►. _
/ RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE I STA. 17+08 EOSTINGEDGE ---»„
i TWO ONE FOUR NINETY-EIGHT
I I / NINETY NOVA SCOTIA LIMITED I BEGIN PROPOS D OF WETLAND I uTl CL (9)
I GOUDARZI,KAMRANCIMAN I \ PIN#856310458472 BOARDWALK II S
/ I UT1 CL (11) EXISTING UN -NAMED TRIBU
' TARY
I GOUDARZI, 70NIA I I UNR 9 LOT 89 PHI I i
PIN# 856310458898
UNIT 4 LOT 157 PH81 I I I ,' I PROPOSED 25 LFf BOARQWALK / j
/ W
\
/ JACKSON AND SONS HOMES, LLC I
I
PIN# 856310458561
I CROPLEV, BRYAN 8 MARGARET I
WATKINS, W BARRY
/
UNIT 9 LOT 70 PHI
PIN#856310458375 I
PIN#856310458277
I U
UNIT9L0T 68 PNI
UNIT9 LOT 67 PHI /
JUDIK, MARY ROWE
I Q
I �
I
PIN#856310458169
UNIT9LOT 66 PHI
/
/
IMPACT TABLE '
Site Type Area "g i
W-1 Herbaceous 0.01 -ac. dor I I
W-2 Herbaceous 0.01 -ac. BARKLEY LANE '
W-3 Forested 0.01 -ac. '
W-4 Herbaceous 0.01 -ac.
W-5 Forested 0.05 -ac.
--------- ------
------ -�---
----------------�----
STA. 20+75 U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 150' RIGHT-OF-WAY
END PROPOSED 6' GRAVEL SCREENINGS GREENWAY
BEGIN 6' WADE ASPHALT TRAIL STA. 27+58
PROPOSED 20 LF
STA. 22+00 NOTE: THERE IS AN EXISTING ACCESS 15" RCP CULVERT
END 6' WADE ASPHALT TRAIL AREA FROM HWY. 15/501 IN THIS AREA. g
BEGIN 6' WADE GRAVEL CONTRACTOR MAY UTILIZE THIS AREA TO a+,
0EftSCREENINGS GREENWAY ACCESS THE TRAIL SITE IF A TEMPORARY
+ o o CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS INSTALLED. <
N + 0 p O N
N N+ ++ W
_ EDGE OF WETLAND
5 + i
EXISTING p O N U
NETLAND •EN^ - - o} . i Q
{
..- � �•'��-.-='S�`�.-.. .-. � �' .T-'.a�^.,,•,,.. _�� � _ __ '�5� �Y __ __ __ __-_ --- T-s----s-----s-wnaw�--sc� ---
1
cUTI U (8)' --..�. = T i?t -. �-,- _ .. m^' �-- '�'. - �- - ---T- - UP
^l / 'M' - ,_ �/ ' rnsrWc mw
UTI LL (7) EWi6 ' EMS EWI4 1 nr fl. �O¢M I I I 1 EXISTING DITCH .,M
&0 I' I' I I I I EXISTINGOVER
HEAD
2W IkW EWELECTRICLINE
EXISTING UN -NAMED TRIBUTARY
EXISTING EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/NCDOT WETLAND
I
m / I RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE I
� m
b I
a I m I m I m m FRANKLIN, JAMES I I
DES, MARY
PIN# 85563104588 51 ARUSCAVAGE, PHILIP 111 JANET C / I m
DISH MANAGEMENT, LLC p�jN## 88556316444"833300 I I w
UNIT 9 LOT 65 PH 1 PIN# 856310458033 I ECKARD, CYNTHIA WEST PIN# 856314448338 1
' UNIT 9 LOT 64 PH I I I I I MOLLIE PIN# 856314448436 UNIT 9 LOT 56 PH I I UNIT 9 LOT 55 PH I I cj
VILLAGE OF PINEHURST I 31-523 UUNIT 9 LOT 57 PHI 1
P NI# 856314448925 UNIT 95L0T SB PH I \ ,o
1 I CAMPBPATRIDOA D— E 8 I I I I ( \<
TUCKER, STEPHEN BACHTELL, DONOVAN G PIN# 856314448621
IMPACT TABLE I I UNR9LOT 63 PHI I IT REALTY, LLC
/ I JOHNSTOR REBECCA BACHTELL, LAURA B PIN# 856314448710
\
UNIT 9 LOT 60 PHI UNIT 9 LOT 59 PHI I I \
Site Type Area / I PIN# 856314448626 I PIN# 856314446728 I
I UNR 9 LOT 62 PHI
W-1 Herbaceous 0.01 -ac. UNIT9L0T 61 PHI
W-2 Herbaceous 0.01 -ac.
I i i
W-3 Forested 0.01 -ac.
W-4 Herbaceous 0.01 -ac.
W-5 Forested 0.05 -ac.
NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION
U�
W¢ -
E � z
�z
VUz
0a=
fah
z
�z
a`
"M
W_
C7
W�
=U�
Z Q
0O Z
/ J
VJ61�
O 0
Z U
L? W =
1
� XO
} W z
Q V)
CD > w
_ ? a
(n Z p
W w
ILL]
O
W J
J_
0
m a w> z 2
ZZ
W C7 p U-' N
m F- I. 0 m Z
O¢ w a w O
O O U 0 U
DO
N
LLJ
W U)
V/
C7 O
C
W 0O
O O
O
co
SHEET
C-101

_b.----
PLAN
U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 150' RIGHT-OF-WAY STA. 34+80
STA. 30+57 ,-.
�, END 6' WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL
END PROPOSED 6' WIDE GRAVEL BEGIN 6' WIDE GRAVEL Ha
SCREENINGS GREENWAY SCREENINGS GREENWAY o w
z BEGIN PROPOSED BOARDWALK cRAPrticscAu INCH = 3o FEET Z
00
n n
STA. 28+83 M a
END PROPOSED 6' WIDE GRAVEL S
SCREENINGS GREENWAY + ` �\ 10'±
- - 5 f _
BEGIN PROPOSED BOARDWALK EXISTING UN -NAMED TRIBUTARY PROPOSED 398 LF
EXISTING WETLAND 'A1Y 8 ASPHALT TRAIL
+ -
EMSTING WETLAND 'BW' p + _
AW O AW9 AWB
2 Bw2 Awl
8
/M¢� .a. � r_
5'±
W N n�._,-. AW6 AWS a..QC�am s°e,YrnE�_l`
ews Bwa a bis--•.��. AWa 12't e� wrE°''� _ -s--iJP _�I - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/NCDO
7/// � �-- ._ •- - 20-f' RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
Q^',I� 2 U71 cuc� �I I
� II4 I
/EXISTINGuMOORE COlM 1Y I I
'AJIM E - %.rte, ray I PUBLIC ES SEWER I I POTEAT, GEORGE H.
& KATHRYN K.
IUP. L _-E- T- •" - AW't STA. 30+82 \ I y I I FINN 856314439630
-�-
EXISTING OVERHEAD I END PROPOSED BOARDWALK CURRY, MICHAEL K .. I I I UNIT 9 LOT 115 PHI /
WI ELECTRIC LINE I BEGIN PROPOSED 6' WIDE CURRY, BARBARAL I YANCHISIN, ALICIA G MAHOOD, PATRICIA E.
Bw10 Bwtt I / \ `eSPHALT TRAIL \ PIN#856314438793 I I PIN# 856314439520 , PIN# 856314438373
UT1CL6 \ UNIT 9 LOT 111 PHI I UNIT 9 LOT 114 PH I I / UNIT 9 LOT 116 PH I
Bw8 Bw9 WOODWORTH, JEFF I HAFFEV, CHRISTIAN & EMMA
ROUGHER, BARBARA C C/O BARBARA J I ZEIGLER, ASHLEY JANE
PROPOSED 25 LF STEVENS \ PIN#856314439605 I PIN#858314439507
BOARDWALK PIN# 8856314448085 c \ \ RIEK, ALBERT I I UNIT 9 LOT 112 PH 1 UNIT 9 LOT 113 PHI /
I RIEK, VICKI OVERMAN I I
y
UNIT a LOT 107 PH 1 PROPOSED 25 LF PIN# 8.18, 314438871 \
I 60ARD // I -K UNIT 9 LOT 110 PH I
_ / I
!\ I VAN HOUTEN, ROBERT E VAN I I o \ \ \ 1
K HOUTEN ANITA R PIN# 856314448143 INC / \
UNIT 9 LOT 106 PH I I I SYKES CONSTRUCTION CO, o
p PIN# 856314438956
ro I I STA. 29+08 BOYD, MICHAEL L. \ \
1 UNIT 9 LOT 108 PHI BOYD, MADINA R.
Y END PROPOSED BOAR WALK
BEGIN PROPOSED 6' DE PIN 9 LOT 109 PH8 CUR11S LANE
v 11 GRAVEL SCREENINGS REENWAY / UNIT9 LOT 109 PHI
1 I /
1
IMPAC-�-T4LE I I
Site Ty e Area
W-1 He acookmy OkOl-ac.
W-2 Her aceous 0.01 -ac.
W-3 Forested 0.01 -ac.
W-4 Herbaceous 0.01 -ac.
W-5 Forested 0.05 -ac. FL
150' RIGHT-OF-WAY
U.S. HIGHWAY 15-501 RELOCATE EXISTING LANDSCAPING
AS DIRECTED BY THE VILLAGE TO
FACILITATE TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
a
STA. 37+66 m
END 6' WIDE GRAVEL
SCREENINGS GREENWAY
BEGIN 6' WIDE
CONCRETE SIDEWALK. 6 @ J
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/NCDOT
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
it UP
— — I- 'I A
Jlip`-
yW� -
M
W/ EXISTING OVERHEAD
Z ELECTRIC LINE I -
= I I
r — I
REMOVEI I
(2) EXI TING
.. LEANINGI TREES EXISTING ASPHALT
FOREST DRIVE TRAILHEAD
I PARKING LOT I
STA. 38+70.06
END 6' NIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK.
VILLAGE OFPINEHURST I CONNECT TO EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
I PIN# 856314439129 �
UNIT 9 LOT 130 PH 1
Vl w s;
U$
wzy
• Hz�
z
a
,-4z�
VUz9
O J z
0. H
�z
QW�
W�
z�
oz06-
z
:* 66'�
Z Q
O Zo
V J
Of
LO W U
I � 2
H
} —j Lu Z
Q
} w
= Q Z
U)LL
Z) LLI w
ct
LU _g
0 >
W
Q
QQ
Z M
LU
U)
00
w
U) O
d+
ON N
L.L i
a L_
U)
SHEET
C-102_

133HS
Not to Scale
Cross—section View
M
O
D
n �
OD
Wr
C/)7r
Z cn
D
Boardwalk Deckin
mg�s�gm
0 0
0r-
Native Riparian Seed Mix O
M
D mz
Standard Erosion Control Seed Mix
4
0
M
>
-4 =
Approximate
Z
-n D D
Bankfull
M
Erosion Elevation
=
Z � N
R1 S
Control Erosion
D
Z
Blanket Control
o
C z
Blanket
Z
;Ul
Normal Flow f
A
tream Be
m
y
Posts 10' O.C.
�zy
Notes: Disturbed stream banks to be stabilized. Install erosion control blankets (SC -150 or equivalent) to
^
Zn` r
manufacturer's specifications. Cast standard erosion control seed mix and native riparian seed mix (ERNST
�
ERNMX-308 or equivalent). ERNST Seed Company. 8884 Mercer Pike, Meadville, PA 16335. Phone
�4)Seeds,
[phone]. Email: sales0ernstseed.com.
z Cn
m VJ

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Moore City: Village of Pinehurst
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.2183° 0 Long. -79.45230 1R'.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Nicks Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Cape Fear
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03030004
IM Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ,navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There [c "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Inicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
7 Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 640 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.6 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on.stti)ii�eilby (iW1►.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
[] Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
a Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HI.A.1 and Section HI.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HLB.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IH.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 1,01WA00
Drainage area: 158
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 2 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through ck; tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are�il river miles from TNW.
Project waters areo%sj river miles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT -Nicks Creek, Nicks Creek, Little River.
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that annlv):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 2 feet
Average depth: 4 feet
Average side slopes:'1 .
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Portions of the steam channel in the project
site flow through a cleared utility corridor. The stream banks have been driven over by heavy trucks and overwidened in places, and the
channel becomes braided in other portions of the project site due to debris blockages and tire tracks re-routing flow. Areas of erosion
were noted along the stream channel in the project site.
Presence of run/riffle/ of complexes. Explain: Yes.
Tributary geometry: ,
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 24 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime: Lower flow conditions during the summer months and stronger flow conditions during the
winter months.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: . Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: UMM. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
❑ changes in the character of soil
® shelving
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM? Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ra Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Evidence of sewage leaking from the Moore County sewer line; generally water quality is average considering
the streams location next to Highway 15-501 and other impervious areas in the drainage area.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: sewage.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): forested, 40 -feet; riparian corridor is lacking in portions of the
project site where the stream flows through the cleared utility corridor.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: shrub -scrub vegetation community and herbaceous wetlands.
® Habitat for:
® Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Pine trees in the general area supportive habitat for red -cockaded
woodpecker.
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: maco-benthics and amphibians.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.6 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Riparian shrub-scrub/forested and herbaceous.
Wetland quality. Explain: Moderate.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is intermittent -how. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pit:crk6t and conned
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: 'Unknown. Explain findings:
E]Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are $40 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are tZ-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the �100 -S00-year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Forested, 40 -feet.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Shrub -scrub, 75%.
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Wildlife foraging and nesting.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 4
Approximately ( 0.6 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Unit'A' Yes 0.06 Unit'B' Yes 0.09
Unit'D' Yes 0.02 Unit'E' Yes 0.41
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Physical- filters surface water allowing
water to infiltrate the local water table; traps sediment. Chemical- break down of nutrients from local organic material. Biological
supports habitat for amphibians and wildlife.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological Integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IIID: UT -Nicks Creek flows through the wetland bounadries on each of the four wetland units. UT -Nicks Creek influences
hydrology as well as water table fluctuations in each of the four wetland units. Ecologically, vegetation within all four wetland
units contributes to the foodweb within UT -Nicks Creek by contributing organic matter. All four wetlands provide chemical
nutrients at the molecular level to UT -Nicks Creek improving the tributary's ecological function. All four wetlands act to remove
heavy metals, sediment, and other contaminants in the water table which improves water quality in UT -Nicks Creek.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.

RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Well defined OHWM, continuous bell and bank features, strong baseflow conditions, fish and
macrobenthic populations indicate continuous flow, evidence of periodic high flow events.
Q Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 640 linear feet 4 width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Cj Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: UT -Nicks Creek flows through all four wetland unit boundaries; wetlands are within the bankfull
elevation on UT -Nicks Creek.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.6 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
'See Footnote # 3.
1 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.

E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
_ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
' If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
udgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
aCorps 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: Southern Pines, NC 1:24,000 quad.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
ga: National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

FEMA/FMM maps:
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): 2012 NC One.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Field- March 2016.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

ur+ 1MXUn Qti.nA.n idnnf loatinn Fnrrn Vprainn d_11
Date:arc a 0«
Pro ect/Ske: rt
j I , G p
Latitude:
EvaluatorGn �ltu�'it�
0'-'C t. County:
M
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determnation (drds one)
Other U, -r- N i e4 Cf Cc (�
Streem is at bw brtermMent �'J 5
Ephemeral rm n Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
If 219 or perennfal If 2 30• 1
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1'' 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 -pod,
dpple-pool sequence
0
p
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
M
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
No
0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated: see dISQM$10nB In Menai
o U ....., ie..r,+-*-! - St S %
12. Presence of Beseflow
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.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
M
No = 0
Yes us
1.5
n 0.re.nv la. ktn+er M l
16. 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
0
2
3
21. Aquatic MoAusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
M
5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
IrACW
= 0.7§j
OBL =1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: - f r" „_ C �+�: C. 4'� tt.,, City/County: %fnC t r 5'k / iY oot r Cie, Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:— * ' l� a�-��r n�+ � , � c� '1' �n'`tk` Stale: Sampling Point: t
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): � Jnl[kp.. Local relief (concave, convex, none): t: 6n Cc«3l2 Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): f' Lat: 3 S - 2-1(o t Long: -11q, 4 S 12 ?- Datum: �'�1A$
Sol[ Map Unit Name: - am clu<e 6o.tk NWI classification: Y `- \ A, ;;-
J LJ
Are climatic I 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? 06 Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes W No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or. Hydrology naturally problematic? 00 (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 d No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes \77-
No within a Wetland? Yes _� No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators i im m of one is reauired:a
II that a 1
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Mari Deposits U)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
/High Water Table (A2) _
(BIS) (LRR
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
/
1
Surface Water Present? Yes " No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
7 Depth (inches):
/
Saturation Present? Yes -� No
Depth (inches): o - 6
Wetland
`�
Hydrology Present? Yes ' No
includes capillary hinge)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) ° Cover eci s? Status
1. 1'f�+Yin�n Gt"s�tlt.7t.r+�r.-._ a'�ACW
2.C r Alla. ew,'�
3. �J Mw�Clir«rn to _
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1. f, 10 MIN BY
2. Y,QccK J( nn--wka(61( SSZ- tsQ �dK ""
3. �_ UM
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
(Plot size: )
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. ca f-1< SPU• _,50 Lim Devu
2. ; ao ria keir la O
3. 541, l 0 yj
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Z.
3.
4.
5.
observed, list
Sampling Point: UnJ W
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total % Cover of,
!+lumber -of - Dominant Speeies -
r -
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
J (A)
Total Number of Dominant
r, -
Species Across All Strata:
`' (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
p�
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of,
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 In.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - AN herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20°h of total cover:
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
to document the Indicator or
Sampling Point: �wr ,
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist)%t Color (moist) %_ Tvne Loci Texture 1 Remarks
C
S S { _ to Cl,�
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muds (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muds (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Hisdc (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (AS)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochdc (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Messes (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Verk (F18) (MLRA 150A,1606)
_ Sandy Redox (SS) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Fj
Hydric Soil Present? Yes t—/ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: -F-No j CsrP dr Au;n..t E - KA t"l City/County: ,. :-C- Sampling Date: _3-1- L(,,
Applicant/Owner: l� t (i G r f el'[ t1 z+ S " tate: NY-_ Sampling Point: i1 n —
Investigator(s): SSG n M r tin Section, Township, Range: 1
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): CCC ,Cl ",t _ Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): ) -�-PV Let: 35. 214 Long: —La
l . y 5, 2 S Datum: a�
Soil Map Unit Name: r NWI classification: \v\ A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time year? Yes —V— No (if no, explain in Remarks.) J
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? A0 Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V, No
Are Vegetation Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? P P (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 J No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes IX No within a Wetand? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Pdmary Indicatorsminimum of one is reouired&
check allat
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Drainage Pattens (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muds Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesNo
Depth (inches): -a
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
J
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): b .
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Cover Species? Status
1. _ 04 G k_ 0-0 -MC/)
2. _Qer fzQ_ F� .
3. Fro v,nl_ -Z Of,_A 1� 1 Kaf1t/!;._
5. Y 1 OCA -4 A C3"a,4 C, O coo_
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. �� n k s :Ser r t^1.ZTCt
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
x ansa � ff, fi .
M!
6.-
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:
50% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
•I
Sampling Point: fti�"
Number of Dominant Species
Multiply by:
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
x 2 =
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
t p
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
Total % Cover of
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 -
UPL spedes
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 -Re pid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is S3.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 R (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, ACd woody
plants, except woody vines, less then approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
20% of total cover. Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the
Sampling Point: ` (\.I v ,
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) % Twer Loci Texture Remarks
0 - a t .3/1 10 to S L
�- (n
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. =Location: PL=Pore Lining M=Mat
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRR9, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR 5)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (LRR O) —
Reduced Vertic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P. S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
— 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T. U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Solis (F19) (MLRA 148A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
— Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149X 153C, 15313)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
V3
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V/ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: O % City/County. 2( n -P -4 ` NtaM C Sampling Date: 3
Applicant/Owner: t1clc G ter " Slate: S_ Sampling Point: nA 1),
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): a{�ll� 4 Local relief (concave, convex, none)):: 6nOCC,-41 Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): tt Lat: 3S, d Z Datum:
Long:
Soil Map Unit Name: t G h .it1J - ` NWI classification: Yr C3 -'n C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yea*# Yes No (if no, explain in Remarks.) /
Are Vegetation_, Soil _,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? " Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? AX) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V No within a Wetland? Yes _j No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
uvnianl nry
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required• check
all that aooly)
_ Surface Sal Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (86)
High Water Table (A2) _
Mari Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Living Roots (0)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B7)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along
_
_
Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of, Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C6)
_
Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
_
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_
_ Iron Deposits (1215) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (135)
_
_ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg)
_ Sphagnum moss (DS) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes: No
Yes No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): 1�-=
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): U Z
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yek/ No
includes 'Ila frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: •n- A
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
- -- -
) Cover species? Status
-- - -- --- ---. _. -v..
Number of Dominent Species
1. 41M 24A0,UAa
Re-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2. u r;�� (GLQ yr;
6(A o�_� RIgAew
FACU species
x 4 =
3.
UPL species
Total Number of Dominant
3
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
9.
5
10.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AB)
6.
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover 'a -a WI -M YiYen WUMSUee[:
20% of total cover. Total % Cover of. Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
20% of total cover. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2 -
2=FAC
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
FAC species
x3=
1�� 4 'r "
2•
FACU species
x 4 =
3,
UPL species
x5=
6.
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
20% of total cover. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:
below).
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
20% of total cover: I Present?
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more In height and 3 In.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
(7.6 an) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1�� 4 'r "
2•
" ' -^ (� °t �=- �►- L`=
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
3,
4•
5.
6.
7.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, gni woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
8•
9.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:
below).
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
20% of total cover: I Present?
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: rt -A ,
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color Color (moist) % Twer Loci Texture Remarks
v Z IU t t -v S, L �5+-A , (or
Q� 3i Ian tfiu Obf�
Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2),
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S. T. U) _
2 cm Muds (A10) (LRR S)
_
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodpialn Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (1710) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iran-ManganeseLRR Masses (F12) ( O, P. T)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Vedc; (F18) (MLRA 150A,150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA WA, 153C, 163D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T. U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
F3
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and �Gulf
Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: S- Sol AZk4) City/County: P : n@�� r41 / IK.rntf 61> • Sampling Date: �7 f
Applicant/Owner. LI1mt>4 t A Y : vLr Yt,_.r [ t- State: W Sampling Point:�An.A 'fc_
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): t, t,t <-. 1 Local relief (concave, convex, none): p� / An CSU {' Slope (9G): �•!![�
L r� '19 4 J ;? 3 Datum: N O
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): R-1�- P Let: 35.2 � � Long: � � G ��'
Soil Map Unit Name: V G 0 • Uauk D G rt,. °' / NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time f year? Yes d No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil _,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (,b Are `Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? /1 n (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Pdmary Indicators (minimurn of one is r uiredcheck
all that I
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
/Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
�/_ Water Table (A2) _
Mari Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
I!,gh
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_
_ Water Marks (81) Oxidized Rh¢ospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Solis (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (135)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (89)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ye�/ No
Depth (inches): U - 2.
Water Table Present? YesNo
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):y
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yesy No
includes capillary fin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Cover Species? Status
2. I Q P FA[W
3.
4.
5. F+LQ C C LI GQ d ell f�l
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
SaplingStratum(Plot size: )
1. 1 C_A",r (u 6, w., S a 4. � C
2.lkr..W :rt..0 9 eA it r kDAMCA F-A�w
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. L; vsA rr% s •t n e na mac.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. (\rtAnAtnctr,a. ��C�u�
2. Car,, ee 'Inn . _ !7L`'"`
3. SA -i [iQ nLA A -'-r(^ eft ,
4. ��i. e ( n es�"lt�asLa, RC. `A[lr I
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. "i Cr ria Zig, v..4..cm _� -cc,
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:
below).
Sampling Point: �_� `
Number of Dominant Species /
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: LD
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
(��
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
Prevalence index = B/A =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, jn woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
20% of total cover. I Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to
or
Sampling Point: lJLL G
Depth Matrix Redox Features
.(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) ° Type oe Texture Remarks
`z �1 :Saj ! eaPr'
� ra c + J ._ Ali . 01A 10a tri
Wfi- SLJ
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grams. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Mat
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) _
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) _
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 om Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AS) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150/)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (86)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Type:
Depth (inches):
IF3
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0