20160241 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20181031

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

October 29, 2018

Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604

Dear Ms. Higgins,

RE: Nationwide 27 Permit Application- Stone Creek Mitigation Site
Dear Ms.Higgins,
Resource Environmental Solutions is pleased to submit a Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) for the Stone Creek Stream Mitigation Site (“Site”). The Site is located within a
primarily rural watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina, about
fourteen miles south of Smithfield. The Site area exhibits diminished hydrology and habitat value as a result
of past and on-going agricultural activities including row crops and livestock. The Site will involve the
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of unnamed tributaries into Mill Creek within the Neuse River
basin. The Site has been designed in concurrence with the Stone Creek Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Bank.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of
natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in-stream habitat. The floodplain
areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during
flooding events. Total wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project are 0.4 acres with the intention
of providing greater benefits to the surrounding wetlands. Total stream impacts resulting from the proposed
project are 3,824 linear feet but will result in 4,349 linear feet of restored stream. And the open water
impacts resulting from project are 1.06 acres but will be restored to a more natural stream/wetland complex.
The total buffer impacts in zone one are 63,473.59 square feet and in zone two are 2,740.19 square feet.
However, overall there will be a much greater benefit to the riparian buffer from tree planting and livestock
exclusion.

The attached PCN package includes PCN Form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures, and
an updated PJD aquatic resource inventory table and Potential Waters of the US Map.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1062 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Brad Breslow
Project Manager
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
October 29, 2018
Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Nationwide 27 Permit Application- Stone Creek Mitigation Site
Dear Ms. Dailey,
Resource Environmental Solutions is pleased to submit a Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) for the Stone Creek Stream Mitigation Site (“Site”). The Site is located within a
primarily rural watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina, about
fourteen miles south of Smithfield. The Site area exhibits diminished hydrology and habitat value as a result
of past and on-going agricultural activities. The Site will involve the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of streams in the Neuse River basin. The Site has been designed in concurrence with the Stone
Creek Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria agreed upon in the mitigation plan. Accomplishing this objective entails the
restoration of natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in-stream habitat.
The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange
and storage during flooding events. Total wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project are 0.4
acres with the intention of providing greater benefits to the surrounding wetlands. Total stream impacts
resulting from the proposed project are 3,824 linear feet but will result in 4,349 linear feet of restored
stream. And the open water impacts resulting from project are 1.06 acres but will be restored to a
more natural stream/wetland complex.
The attached PCN package includes PCN Form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures, an
updated JD aquatic resource inventory table and Potential Waters of the US Map.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1062 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Brad Breslow
Project Manager
DWR
IDIOM n of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
tial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
C Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20160241
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Central Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Stone Creek
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Brad Breslow
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
10/31/2018
Nearest Body of Water
Mill Creek
Basin
Neuse
Water Classification
C and NSW
Site Coordinates
Version# *
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Mac Haupt:eads\dmhaupt
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
Latitude: Longitude:
35.349684 -78.338352
FA. Processing Information U
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Johnston
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
* Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
rJ Nationwide Permit (NWP)
F- Regional General Permit (RGP)
F Standard (IP)

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
1e. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
O Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
F_ Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Michael K. Hayes and Sharrion K. Hayes
2b. Deed book and page no.:
5085 520-533
2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
6852 Devils Racetrack Road
Address Line 2
City
Four Oaks
Postal / Zip Cade
27524
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Whitley W. Stephenson and Janet L Stephenson
2b. Deed book and page no.:
5085 534-547
State / Ffovinoe / Region
NC
Ceuntry
USA
2f. Fax Number:
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
2350 Wilsons Mills Road
Address Line 2
City
Smithfield
Fbstal / Zip Cork
27577
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Brad Breslow
3b. Business Name:
RES
3c. Address
Street Address
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Address Line 2
city
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27605
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
I.roject Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
State / Rovinoe / f�egion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Bentonville
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
2b. Property size:
159800-62-20 and 159800-73-6786
41.41
2c. Project Address
Street Address
2252 Joyner Bridge Road
Address Line 2
C1ly
State/ Province/ Fkgion
Raleigh
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
27524
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Mill Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C and NSW
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*

Neuse
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
030202011305
4. Project Description and History
4a. 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 Stone Creek Mitigation Site is a stream and buffer project located within a primarily rural watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina The Site
is located within the Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020201, HUC 03020201150040) (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Mill Creek Watershed, a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) that
exhibits both the need and opportunity stream and riparian buffer restoration. The Neuse TLW encompasses 61 square miles of watershed area. Fifty-five percent of land is used for
agriculture including 75 animal operations, five percent of the area is developed approaching and less than five percent imperviousness total.
The project area is comprised of three sections of easement, totaling 41.41 acres and a total of 5,877 existing linear feet of stream, and is made up of unnamed tributaries that flow
directly to Mill Creek, a direct tributary of the Neuse River. The easement is separated by one break in easement and then a proposed crossed. The project is divided into a northern,
southern, and eastern portion by these crossings. The northern portion of the project includes stream reaches U74 and UT2 as well as, wetland WB, a linear wetland WC, and two
agricultural impoundments. The southern portion of the project includes a portion of Ui1, UT4 and all of Ui3. Moreover, the southern portion also includes the majority of WA. The
eastern portion includes UT1 (Figure 2).
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three wetland areas within the Project (Figure 3). One is mapped as PFO1C (Palustrine Forested Broad -Leaved Deciduous
Temporary Flooded) and is located in the southern half of the project area. The other two wetlands mapped are PUBFI x (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded) and
PUBFx (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Semipermanetly Flooded Excavated) which are two ponds located in the northeast portion of the project area.
In general, all or portions of Ui1, Uig, and UT4 do not function to their full potential. Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from
agriculture, historic land uses, and cattle access. Having been channelized in the past, some of the streams do not access their floodplains as they naturally would have prior to
agricultural operations. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition and some reaches have row crops present up to the edge of the existing channel. In general, all or portions
of UT3 are near their full potential. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in good condition, with few areas found devoid of trees or shrubs that were in use for agricultural uses like
livestock and row crops.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r^ Yes r No r^ Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2X11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 5 - USGS Map.pdf
1.9 MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 4 - Soils Map.pdf 855.32KB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
18.17
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
5,877
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that Will
provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream characteristics, such as stable
cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during flooding events.
The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USAGE, 2005), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives,
such as restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating invasive species.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*

The design approach for the Stone Creek Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of
the channel and floodplain. The analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same location as the design reach. The template
parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar between
the design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods in an effort to identify the design discharge.
The Stone Creek Site will include Restoration, Enhancement Level II, and Preservation. Restoration is proposed along UT1, UT2, and the upstream portion of UT4. Restoration reaches
will typically include a meandering single -thread stream pattern constructed to mimic the natural planform of a low -gradient, sand/gravel bed channel. Proposed sinuosity will depend on
local reference reach conditions and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. As a result of the restoration, periodic flooding and restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate
hydrology and sediment transport throughout the project. Enhancement Level II is proposed along a portion of UT4 and includes livestock exclusion and bank stabilization. Preservation
is proposed along U1-3 and the downstream section of Uf4 to allow high quality aquatic habitat to be protected and enhanced through invasive species treatments.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the reference reach based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow
Hydrographs, regional curves and flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull and other significant storm events. Through this hydrologic
analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based on this calculated discharge. Design
parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function components
within HEC -RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs
of desirable habitat features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat features and in -stream structures such as log grade controls,
brush toes, log vanes, log toes, log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank
stability will also be enhanced through the installation of live stakes that include native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum).
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel
plugs where necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks
will be stabilized using a combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure placement, and sod
transplants where possible. The stream and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a permanent conservation easement, which will be fenced as needed to exclude livestock.
Restoration is proposed along the primary project channel (UT1) to address wasting impairments, particularly channelization, buffer encroachment and impacts from continued
agricultural practices. The watershed that drains to the upper end of the reach is approximately 83 acres, and land use is primarily agricultural and forested. Priority 2 Restoration is
proposed along the upper 650 LF of U1-1 to address historic channelization and the resulting degradation and entrenchment. A minimum 75 -foot buffer will be maintained and protected.
Priority 1 Restoration is proposed for Reach Ui2 to address active erosion, historic channelization and agricultural manipulation. The design approach will include partially filling the
small agricultural pond located at the upstream end of the reach using adjacent spoil. A meandering channel will be constructed starting at a small depression within the pond footprint,
and will outlet into Reach Uf4. The abandon sections of the wasting channel will be backfilled, and woody debris and log structures will be installed along the reach to improve in -stream
habitat and stability. A minimum 100 -foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation.
Preservation is proposed for Reach Uf3 as the existing stream/wetland complex is in excellent condition, regularly accesses its floodplain and provides a variety of aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. A portion of the stream is outside of the easement, in which no credits will be generated, but the stream re-enters the easement boundaries further upstream. A
minimum 100 -foot buffer will be established and protected along the left bank, while the right buffer width will be variable as the conservation easement will follow the existing property
boundary.
Priority 1 Restoration is proposed for Reach Uf4 to address agricultural impacts and historic channelization. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within
the natural valley, and backfilling the wasting stream and adjacent small farm pond. A minimum 100 -foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Log sills
and brush toes will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. A 40 -foot easement is proposed near the middle of the reach to accommodate a proposed twin
36 inch High-density polyethylene (HDPE) farm crossing. Additionally, a small portion of Uf4 is proposed for Enhancement Level II; A minimum of a 100 -foot buffer will be established
along the majority of the reach, and all areas currently impacted from cattle will be planted with native riparian vegetation. Lastly, the bottom portion of UT4 is proposed for restoration,
where a minimum 1000 -foot buffer will be established and protected on both banks.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
2018-06-04 Stone Creek Mitigation Site.pdf 8.96MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes
Comments:
r No
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW -2016-01990
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Jeremy Schmid
Agency/Consultant Company: RES
Other:
r Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
Ajurisdictional determination request was sent to the USACE on March 6, 2017 and a site visit was conducted with the USACE on June 22, 2017.
Sd1. Jurisdictional determination upload
Updated JD_Stone Creek.pdf 5.68MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes O No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory

1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
rJ Wetlands R Streams -tributaries
rJ Open Waters r- Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
P Buffers
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.210
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.390
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.180
2h. Comments:
Wetland impacts associated With restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the e>asting wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. The
restoration design for Uf2 and Uf1 avoided work in wetlands. Creating a new stream channel and enhancing wasting channels will only impact
wetlands slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks.
3. Stream Impacts
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of
2g. Impact
F
Stream Restoration
P
(?)
Jurisdiction*
Jurisdicition*(?)
area*
W1
Stream Restoration
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WA
Yes
Corps
0.030
Aver�e(fed)
(acres)
W2
Stream Restoration
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
�WA
Yes
Corps
0.210
Avera<c7e (feet)
(acres)
W3
Stream Restoration
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WA
Yes �trps
0.150
Average (feet)
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.210
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.390
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.180
2h. Comments:
Wetland impacts associated With restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the e>asting wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. The
restoration design for Uf2 and Uf1 avoided work in wetlands. Creating a new stream channel and enhancing wasting channels will only impact
wetlands slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks.
3. Stream Impacts
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
3,824
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
1092
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
0
3j. Comments:
Impacts are due to relocating streams to natural valley which will provide a net gain in ecological function to the stream and wetland system. After
stream relocation and restoration: for stream impact 1, the epsting length is 2,734 linear feet (LF), and the new length will be 2,913 LF; for stream
impact 2, the eAsting stream length is 218 LF and the new length will be 490 LF; for stream impact 3 & 4, the wasting length is 872 LF, and the new
length will be 946 LF. We will also be preserving 1,525 LF of stream at Reach UT3 in which there will be no impacts.
4. Open Water Impacts
4a. Site # 4a1. Impact Reason 4b. Impact type 4c. Name of waterbody 4d. Activity type :114e. Waterbody type 4f. Impact area
3a. Reason for impact (?) 3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
F
Stream Restoration
P
(?)
Jurisdiction*
0.36
length*
S1
Stream Restoration Permanent
Fill
Ur1
Perennial
Corps6
2,734
Aver�e(fed)
(linear fed)
S2
Stream Restoration Permanent
Fill
Ur2
Perennial
Corps6
218
Avera<c7e (feet)
(linear fed)
S3
Stream Restoration Permanent
Fill
Ur4 - Upstream
P
Intermittent
Corps6
500
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
�
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Fill
Ur4 - Downstream
Perennial
Cors
P
6
372
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
3,824
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
1092
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
0
3j. Comments:
Impacts are due to relocating streams to natural valley which will provide a net gain in ecological function to the stream and wetland system. After
stream relocation and restoration: for stream impact 1, the epsting length is 2,734 linear feet (LF), and the new length will be 2,913 LF; for stream
impact 2, the eAsting stream length is 218 LF and the new length will be 490 LF; for stream impact 3 & 4, the wasting length is 872 LF, and the new
length will be 946 LF. We will also be preserving 1,525 LF of stream at Reach UT3 in which there will be no impacts.
4. Open Water Impacts
4a. Site # 4a1. Impact Reason 4b. Impact type 4c. Name of waterbody 4d. Activity type :114e. Waterbody type 4f. Impact area
01
Stream Restoration
P
Dewatering
Pond
0.69
02
Stream Restoration
P
Dewatering
Pond
0.36
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts:
0.00
4g. Total open water impacts:
1.05
4h. Comments:
4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
1.05

As part of the wetland enhancement and restoration, these ponds will be removed and the stream will be relocated into the natural valley within the
pond bottom. These areas will be planted and become part of the riparian buffer.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
[f Neuse f— Tar -Pamlico
C Catawba r Randleman
C Goose Creek r Jordan Lake
C Other
6b. Impact Type 6c. Per or Temp 6d. Stream name 6e. Buffer mitigation required? 6f. Zone 7 impact 6g. Zone 2 impact
Stream Restoration
P
U1-2
No
9,244
409
Stream Restoration
P
UT4 and Pond B
No
28,790
2,331
Stream Restoration
P
LIT1
No
25,440
0
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Temporary impacts: 0.00 0.00
Zone 1
Zone 2
Total Permanent impacts: 63,474.00
2,740.00
Zone 1
Zone 2
Total combined buffer impacts: 63,474.00
2,740.00
6i. Comments:
See Figure 6 for buffer impact locations. Although there is an impact to the buffer where the stream channel will be constructed, the
buffer as a whole across the site area will be greatly benefited by planting and protection of the project.
Supporting Documentation
Figure 6 - Impacts Map.pdf 1.2MB
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were considered when designing the Stone
Creek Mitigation project. This project should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site. The existing channel length is 5,877 LF. The
proposed project will result in 6,398 LF of stream.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior to turning stream flow into a
segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally, all work in wetlands and streams
will be conducted during dry conditions and/or With mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be made to preserve individual high value trees located
within the stream restoration area.
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?
r^ Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
The project is for stream, wetland, and buffer mitigation and therefore will have far more benefits than the impacts.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:

2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?*
f Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
f Yes r Nor N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
C Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
f Yes r No
5f. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
f Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
r Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
f Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database
Consultation Documentation Upload
USFWS_RESPONSE.pdf 114.58KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)

6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
f Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO GIS Database and confirmation from coordination with SHPO
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
SHPO Response.pdf 106.65KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Mill Creek and Uf3 within the project area are mapped within a FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) and a FEMA floodway. RES will conduct a FEMA
flood study to either obtain a No -Rise Certification or CLOMR/ LOMR from the Johnston County floodplain administrator. Construction access is
slightly constrained in some areas by existing mature hardwood vegetation. A tree survey has been conducted to design the mitigation measures and
access to minimize impacts to specimen trees. No grading activities are proposed within the mapped floodway for reach UT3. While designing the
Stone Creek project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of the adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will
not be affected by the proposed design, and no detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final FEMA coordination
prior to construction of the project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA NFHL FIRM Panel 3720158BOOK eff. 6/20/2018
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Stone Creek PCN Cover Letter DWR.pdf
Stone Creek PCN Cover Letter USACE.pdf
PCN—Combined—Submittal-1 0292018.pdf
Signature
R By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
206.65KB
332.34KB
10.2MB
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Jamey McEachran
Signature
Sign
Date
10/31/2018

0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 5 - USGS Map
Stone Creek Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Easement
©Date: 9/24/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\PCN\Figure 3 - USGS Map.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
0 600300
Feet
Figure 4 - Soils Map
Stone Creek Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Easement
©Date: 9/24/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\PCN\Figure 2 - Soils Map.mxd1 inch = 600 feet
B2
UT3
UT1
UT4
UT2
WA
WB
WC
O1
W1/W 2
O2
B1
B2
B3
S2
S4
S1
S3
W3
Legend
Proposed Easement
Proposed Top of Bank
Existing Top of Bank
Existing Wetlands
Impact Type
Open Water Impacts
Buffer Zone 1 Impacts
Buffer Zone 2 Impacts
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\PCN\Figure 6 - Impacts Map.mxdDate: 10/29/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
1 inch = 250 feet
Figure 6 - Impacts Map
Stone Creek Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina0250125
Feet
©
Impact ID Perm/Temp Aquatic Resource Area/Length
W1 Perm WA 0.03 ac
W2 Tem p WA 0.21 ac
W3 Perm WA 0.15 ac
S1 Perm UT1 2,734 ft
S2 Perm UT2 218 ft
S3 Perm UT4 - US 500 ft
S4 Perm UT4 - DS 372 ft
O1 Perm PA 0.69 ac
O2 Perm PB 0.36 ac
B1 (Zone 1)Perm UT2 9,243.89 s qft
B1 (Zone 2)Perm UT2 408.83 s qft
B2 (Zone 1)Perm UT4 28,789.9 s qft
B2 (Zone 2)Perm UT4 2,331.36 s qft
B3 (Zone 1)Perm UT1 25,439.8 s qft
March 6, 2017
Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Dear Ms. Samantha Dailey,
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Request for a Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination for the Stone Creek Mitigation Site located in Johnston County, North
Carolina. As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S. on the subject site.
The purpose of the proposed Site is to generate compensatory mitigation credits for inclusion in
the Neu-Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank in hydrologic unit 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin.
This project will address stressors identified in the watershed through nutrient removal, sediment
removal, runoff filtration, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat. These project goals will be
achieved through stream enhancement and restoration.
Delineation Information
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on January 31,
2017 in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual methodology
(Environmental Laboratory 1987), as well as the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0).
Flags were numbered and placed onsite to mark the limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands
and other Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were located using Global Positioning System (GPS)
technology with sub-meter accuracy and the streams were drawn using the avaiable National
Hydrography Dataset Flowlines. Stream determinations have not been verified by a NCDWR
representative. The approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached
Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map.
The current land use on-site is primarily pasture, forest, and row crop. The site contains four (4)
unnamed tributaries to Mill Creek. Two (2) wetland areas were found on-site. Wetland A is a large
forested wetland in the floodplain of Mill Creek and Wetland B is a small forested wetland
downstream of the dam of Pond A.
Attachments for Reference
-Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
-Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
-Landowner Authorization Forms
-Project Vicinity Map
-Project Location Map (with topography)
-National Wetlands Inventory Map
-Aerial Imagery
-Soils Map
-Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
-Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508
137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901
33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220
2
RES respectfully requests that the Corps confirm this delineation of Waters of the U.S. on this property. I will
contact you in the coming days to arrange a site visit for this purpose. Please contact me ([phone]) if
you have any additional questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Schimd, PWS Ryan Medric
Ecologist Ecologist
Attachments
cc: Daniel Ingram—Resource Environmental Solutions
03/06/2017
Waters_Name State Cowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude Local_Waterway
UT1 NORTH CAROLINA R5 Linear 2738 FOOT DELINEATE 35.3505 -78.337 Mill Creek
UT2 NORTH CAROLINA R5 Linear 218 FOOT DELINEATE 35.3503 -78.3416 Mill Creek
UT3 NORTH CAROLINA R5 Linear 1525 FOOT DELINEATE 35.3475 -78.3407 Mill Creek
UT4 - upstream NORTH CAROLINA R4 Linear 663 FOOT DELINEATE 35.3506 -78.3407 Mill Creek
UT4 - downstreaNORTH CAROLINA R5 Linear 733 FOOT DELINEATE 35.3507 -78.3412 Mill Creek
Wetland A NORTH CAROLINA PFO Area 16.7 ACRE DELINEATE 35.3472 -78.341 Mill Creek
Wetland B NORTH CAROLINA PFO Area 0.21 ACRE DELINEATE 35.3509 -78.3413 Mill Creek
Wetland C NORTH CAROLINA PFO Area 0.21 ACRE DELINEATE 35.3507 -78.3395 Mill Creek
Pond A NORTH CAROLINA POW Area 0.69 ACRE DELINEATE 35.3515 -78.341 Mill Creek
Pond B NORTH CAROLINA POW Area 0.23 ACRE DELINEATE 35.3503 -78.3412 Mill Creek
VICINITY MAP
STONE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Street Map Source:World Street Map ESRI ArcGIS Online³1 inch = 800 feet
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\JD_Figures\StoneCreek_Vicinity.mxd - Date Saved: 3/6/2017
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
STONE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\JD_Figures\StoneCreek_Project_Location.mxd - Date Saved: 3/6/2017
Street Map Source:
USA Topo Maps
ESRI ArcGIS Online³
1 inch = 2,000 feet
PFO1F
PFO1/4A PFO1/4A
PFO1F
PFO1/4A
PUBHx
PUBFx
PFO1A
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
NATIONAL WETLANDSINVENTORY MAP
STONE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Digital Ortho Photo Source:World ImageryESRI ArcGIS OnlineNational Inventory Wetlands (NWI)Sourcehttp://www.fws.gov/³1 inch = 400 feet
LEGEND
NWI MAPPED WETLANDS
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\JD_Figures\StoneCreek_NWI.mxd - Date Saved: 3/6/2017
AERIAL IMAGERY
STONE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Digital Orthophoto Source: World ImageryESRI ArcGIS Online³1 inch = 400 feet
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\JD_Figures\StoneCreek_Aerial_Imagery.mxd - Date Saved: 1/30/2017
Bb
To
DoA
GeD
GeB
Gr
GeB
GeB
Bb
WaB
GeD
GeB
GeD
GeB
AsA
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
SOILS MAP
STONE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
Source:U.S. Department of AgricultureNatural ResourcesConservation ServiceSoil Survey Geographic(SSURGO)³1 inch = 400 feet
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\JD_Figures\StoneCreek_Soils.mxd - Date Saved: 3/6/2017
LEGENDAPPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITSHYDRIC SOILSOIL WITH HYDRIC INCLUSIONS
DP-1
31-Jan-17
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Stone Creek Mitigation Site Johnston
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid, R. Medric
Floodplain
LRR P 35.3471 -78.3405 NAD83
Bibb sandy loam PFO
Slope:0.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.0concave
6YesNo
Yes No
Yes No Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
30
30
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
637.5%FAC
37.5%OBL
625.0%FAC
0.0%
100.0%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45 45
0.0%
40 80
0.0%
50 150
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
135 275
0.0%
2.037
66.7%FACW
22.2%OBL
11.1%OBL
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45
0.0%
0.0%
10
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
10
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-1Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:30
50% of Total Cover:5 20% of Total Cover:2
50% of Total Cover:22.5 20% of Total Cover:9
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
50% of Total Cover:0 20% of Total Cover:0
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:40 20% of Total Cover:16
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
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, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Liquidambar styraciflua
(Plot size:30
Nyssa aquatica
Acer rubrum
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:30
Arundinaria gigantea
Juncus effusus
Carex lurida
Smilax laurifolia
DP-1SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-12 10YR 4/1 80 10YR 5/8 20 C M Loam
DP-2
31-Jan-17
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
City/County:
State:
, or Hydrology
, or Hydrology
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Long.:
Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Soil Map Unit Name:
Datum:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
NWI classification:
Remarks:
R
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Are Vegetation
Section, Township, Range: S
significantly disturbed?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
, Soil
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
% /
, Soil
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0US Army Corps of Engineers
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Stone Creek Mitigation Site Johnston
Resource Environmental Solutions NC
J. Schmid, R. Medric
Hillside
LRR P 35.3474 -78.3395 NAD83
Dorian fine sandy loam Upland
Slope:1.0Local relief (concave, convex, none):°0.6

convex
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Use scientific names of plants.
30
20
10
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
650.0%FAC
33.3%FAC
716.7%FAC
0.0%
85.7%
60
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
100.0%FAC
5 10
0.0%
115 345
10 40
5
0 0
0.0%
130 395
0.0%
3.038
75.0%FAC
25.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40
0.0%
0.0%
5
0 0.0%
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
Indicator
Status
= Total Cover
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
1
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
5
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20
0
0
0
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
20
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%Definition of Vegetation Strata:
DP-2Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)(Plot size:30
50% of Total Cover:2.5 20% of Total Cover:1
50% of Total Cover:20 20% of Total Cover:8
50% of Total Cover:2.5 20% of Total Cover:1
50% of Total Cover:10 20% of Total Cover:4
0 0.0%
50% of Total Cover:30 20% of Total Cover:12
0 0.0%
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
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, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1m) tall.
Pinus taeda
(Plot size:30
Liquidambar styraciflua
Quercus nigra
(Plot size:30
Ilex opaca
(Plot size:30
Rubus argutus
(Plot size:30
Microstegium vimineum
Eupatorium capillifolium
Smilax laurifolia
DP-2SOILSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
1
1
3
3
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0-4
4-18
10YR
2.5Y 5/4
3/3 100
100
Sandy Loam
Sandy Loam
WA
WA
UT1
UT3
UT4 upstream
UT2
UT4 downstream
WA
DP-2
DP-1
WB
WC
PA
PB
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Stone Creek\MXD\JD_update\StoneCreek_WOUS11x17 Updated.mxd - Date Saved: 10/23/2018 WATERS OF THE U.S. MAPJOHNSTON COUNTY, NC PROJECT MANAGER:
DI
DRAWN:
RM
JOB NUMBER:
######
DATE:
0 3 /0 6 /2 0 1 7
REVISIONS: NONE
STONE CREEK MITIGATION SITEILEGEND
Conservation Easement
Potential Wetland WOUS
Open Water
Potential Non-Wetland WOUS
Ditch
Wetland Data Point
Upland Data Point
1 inch = 229 feet
0 200100Feet