20171295 Ver 1_401 PCN Revisions_20190806

Strickland, Bev
From: Jamey Mceachran <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 4:52 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Steve Kichefski; Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac;
Davis, Erin B
Cc: Bradley Breslow; Kasey Carrere; Matt Butler; Frasier Mullen
Subject: [External] 404/401 PCN Revisions for RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank: Scout Mitigation
Project
Attachments: Plansheet updates_20190805_Scout Mitigation Site.pdf, Mitigation
Plan_Plansheets_Updates_862019.pdf, Scout_JD_update.pdf, PCN_Scout_Revised.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hello All,
Please see attached an updated PCN (original submitted on June 6, 2019) and a couple of pages of the mitigation plan
for the Scout Mitigation Project within the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank. These edits are in response to an IRT site visit
the 25th and 26th of June and follow up comments from NCDWR. Attached are four documents: (1) updated pages and
figures to the Final Mitigation Plan due to credit change from the non-standard buffer tool, (2) two additional design
sheets, (3) a revised PCN, and (4) the updated PJD as of June 18th, 2019.
Per IRT request, RES conducted an additional assessment of the jurisdictional features on site (see attached updated PJD
conducted on July 18th, 2019). One feature, CH3 was added to the PJD. Also in response to comments two additional
sheets have been added to the design sheets, a tie-in for a feature (CH3) at the top of HC3 and another tie in for the
ditch feature (CH4) at the bottom of HC3. The addition of CH3 as a jurisdictional feature affected the non-standard
buffer calculation and therefore 4 credits will be loss due to this addition. Therefore, pages 1 and 29 of the mitigation
plan have been updated, Figure 5: Existing Conditions and Figure 10: Concept Design have been updated, and the non-
standard buffer credit calculator tool export has been updated.
Most notable revisions in the PCN document are the updates to the Stream Impact Table (addition of S4) and the update
to Figure 6 — Project Impacts Map (addition of S4 temporary impacts due to grading for the tie-in of CH3 into HC3). This
added an additional 122 linear feet of temporary impacts to the stream. Therefore, the total stream impacts for the site
have increased from 2,552 linear feet to 2,674 linear feet. The total wetland impacts will remain the same.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact myself or Brad Breslow
([e-mail]) if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Jamey
Jamey Redding McEachran
Ecology Team Lead
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]

I PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Components
The Scout Mitigation Site (the "Project") is located within a rural watershed in Davie County,
approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. The Project
lies within the Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -
basin 03-07-02 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14 -digit hydrologic unit code (HUC)
03040101160010 (Figure 1). The Project proposes to restore 2,686 linear feet (LF) of stream, enhance
458 LF of stream, and provide water quality benefit for 810 acres of drainage area. The Project is in the
Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion.
The Project area is comprised of a single easement located along Hauser Creek and two unnamed
tributaries, totaling 2,801 existing LF, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River. The stream
mitigation components are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 10. The Project is located between two
sections of the overall 27 -acre Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Mockingbird Site (Figure 1).
The Project is accessible from Spillman Road, through the Project parcel. Coordinates for the Project
are as follows: 36.030798, -80.516312.
1.2 Project Outcomes
The streams proposed for restoration have been historically impacted by livestock production,
agricultural practices, and a lack of riparian buffer. Proposed improvements to the Project will meet the
river basin needs expressed in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) as well as ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement.
Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Project presents 3,144 LF of proposed stream,
generating 2,918 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1).
Table 1. Scout Project Components Summary
Mitigation Approach
Linear Feet Mitigation Ratio
Warm Base SMUs
Restoration
Enhancement I1
2,686 1
458 2.5
2,686
183
Total
3,144
2,869
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-174
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
223
Total Adiusted SMUs
2,918
Scout Mitigation Plan 1 June 2019

6.5 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon site design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will only be revised to be
consistent with the as -built condition if there is a large discrepancy and with an approved mitigation
plan addendum. This will be approved by the USACE.
Table 15. Mitigation Credits
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to
Providers in the January 2018, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described
below and in Figure(s) 11.
6.6 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
Buffer measurements for additional credit were made horizontally, beginning from the edge of the
wetted perimeter and extending to easement boundary. Due to the minimum required widths, additional
credit was not generated until a stream is at least 50 feet inside the edge of the buffer. Table 16 describes
the adjustments in stream credit based on buffer widths. Areas within the project that are being used to
generate additional credit are solely being used for the generation of stream mitigation credits and will
not be used for the generation of any other credit type (i.e., the same square foot of buffer cannot be
used to generate wetland credit, nutrient offset credits or state buffer credits).
Scout Mitigation Plan 29 June 2019
The Scout Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Warm Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
2,918
NA
NA
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed Stationing Existing Proposed Mitigation
Length (LF) Length (LF) Ratio
SMUs
HC3
Restoration
0+53 to 27+39 2,484 2,686 1:1
2,686
CH1
Enhancement II
0+38 to 3+86 249 348 1: 2.5
139
CH2
Enhancement II
1+00 to 2+10 68 110 1: 2.5
44
Totals 2,801 3,144
2,869
Credit Lost in Required Buffer*
-174
Credit Gain for Required Buffer*
223
Total Adjusted SMUs
2,918
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to
Providers in the January 2018, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described
below and in Figure(s) 11.
6.6 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
Buffer measurements for additional credit were made horizontally, beginning from the edge of the
wetted perimeter and extending to easement boundary. Due to the minimum required widths, additional
credit was not generated until a stream is at least 50 feet inside the edge of the buffer. Table 16 describes
the adjustments in stream credit based on buffer widths. Areas within the project that are being used to
generate additional credit are solely being used for the generation of stream mitigation credits and will
not be used for the generation of any other credit type (i.e., the same square foot of buffer cannot be
used to generate wetland credit, nutrient offset credits or state buffer credits).
Scout Mitigation Plan 29 June 2019

".t
G
r �# fi
Wn
Legend
r Proposed Easement - 13.22ac.^�,
® Wetlands k
Parcels
Existing Stream
N
Date: 8/6/2019
Figure 5 - Existing Conditions Map
w e Drawn by: MDE res
- 5 Scout Mitigation Site
Checked by: BPB
0 200 400
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch =400 feet
Feet

" t .AK
Ilk�yAL
A
K
v
. � y
t k
L--gend •x`41 r
Scout Mitigation Site Credits y
Proposed d Easement - 13.22ac. Proposed Proposed Mitigation Base
p Reach Mitigation Type Length (LF) Ratio SMUs
Approach HC3 Restoration 2,686 1.01 2,686
CH1 Enhancement 11 348 2.5:1 139
Restoration (1:1) CH2 Enhancement II 110 2.5:1 44
Enhancement II (2.5:1) Total 1 3,144 1 2,869
Credit Lost in Required Buffer 174
Uncredited Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 223
Total Adjusted SMUs 2,918
N
Date: 8/6/2019
Figure 10 - Concept Design Map
A'Ww - e Drawn by: MDE res
5 Scout Mitigation Site
Checked by: BPB
0 150 300
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch =300 feet

Ideal Buffers
Actual Buffers
pres
N
No credit loss in minimum
E
NI
buffer width zones (35-40 ft, 40-45 ft,
& 45-50 ft)
where the Mockingbird easement occurs
s
0 150 300
Feet
Figure 11 - Non -Standard
Buffer Zones
Scout
Mitigation Site
Davie County,
North Carolina
Date: 8/6/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: BPB
1 in = 300 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Mockingbird Easement
® Ineligible Area
Buffer Width Zones
- 0-15 feet
- 15-20 feet
_ 20-25 feet
_ 25-30 feet
- 30-35 feet
- 35-40 feet
- 40-45 feet
- 45-50 feet
50-75 feet
- 75-100 feet
- 100-125 feet
125-150 feet
Buffer Width Zone (feet from
Ordinary High Water Mark)
Buffer Zones
less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)
94,320
31,440
31,440
31,440
31,440
31,440
31,440
31,440
157,200
157,200
157,200
157,200
Ideal Buffer (square feet)
96,649
32,390
32,495
32,574
32,624
32,426
32,198
32,116
158,924
156,621
157,794
160,194
Actual Buffer (square feet)
93,144
30,461
30,135
29,868
29,572
29,053
28,713
28,410
112,749
54,714
26,262
16,595
Zone Multiplier
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent
1,435
287
287
287
143
143
143
143
201
143
115
115
MOW
Percent of Ideal Buffer 96% 1 94% 1 93% 92% 1 91% 1 90% 89% 1 88%
1 71% 35% 1 17% 1 10%
Credit Adjustment
-52
1-17 1-21
-24
1-13 1-15
-16
-17
142
50
19
12
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required Buffer Credit Gain for Additional Buffer Net Change in Total Credit
Credit from Buffers
2,869
-174
224
49
2,918

Site Name: Scout
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor: RES
County: Davie
Minimum Required Buffer Width': 50
Mitigation Type
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement 1(1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Preservation (5:1)
Other (7.5:1)
Other (10:1)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)°
Ideal Buffer (square feet)'
Actual Buffer (square feet)'
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Mitigation Ratio Creditable Stream
Baseline Stream Credit
2686.00
183.20
3144.00 2869.20
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>35 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
94320
31440
31440
31440
31440
31440
31440
31440
157200
157200
157200
157200
96648.68245
32390.31558
32495.29434
32573.92511
32624.04559
32426.13255
32198.04232
32115.68819
158924.1326
156621.467
157793.6594
160193.6225
93143.69908
30460.88343
30134.98119
29867.93722
29571.95159
29052.72089
28713.29649
28410.02075
112749.1033
54713.98657
26261.84516
16595.22929
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
1434.60
286.92
286.92
286.92
143.46
143.46
143.46
143.46
200.84
143.46
114.77
114.77
96%
94%
93%
92%
91%
90%
89%
88%
71%
35%
17%
10%
-52.03
-17.09
-20.84
-23.84
-13.42
-14.92
-15.53
-16.55
142.49
50.12
19.10
11.89
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required Credit Gain for Net Change in Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
2869.20 -174.22 223.60 49.38 2918.58
'Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
'Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
'Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
°This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
'Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non -creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
'Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.

W A rEq�G
Y
! ! a
o Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
NX 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
N Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below.
N Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes NX No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Scout
2b.
County:
Davie
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Bermuda Run
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
See Supplemental
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
X❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
RES
4d. Street address:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27605
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
5853135817 & 5853144949
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.030798 Longitude: -80.516312
1 c.
Property size:
13.22 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Hauser Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV, Class C
2c.
River basin:
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
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:
See the Supplemental Information and the existing conditions maps (Figure 1: Vicinity and Service Area, Figure 2: Existing Conditions, Figure 3:
NRCS Soils Map, Figure 4: USGS Map, Figure 5: FEMA Map Figure 6: Impacts Map).
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.75
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 2,801
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
See Supplemental
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See Supplemental
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
0 Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Jeremy Schmid
Agency/Consultant Company: RES
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A jurisdictional determination request was sent to the United States Army Corps of Engineers on October 27, 2017, and the approved PJD was
received on March 26, 2018.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes 0 No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 T
Stream Relocation
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.26
W2 P
Stream Relocation
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.03
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.29
2h. Comments:
See Supplemental
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Stream Relocation
Hauser Creek (HC3)
PER
Corps
7
2,484
S2 T
Culvert
Hauser Creek (HC3)
PER
Corps
7
20
S3 P
Culvert
Hauser Creek (HC3)
PER
Corps
7
48
S4 T
Grading
CH3
INT
Corps
7
122
S5 -
Choose one
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
2,674
3i. Comments:
See Supplemental
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 -
Choose one
Choose
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require miti ation, then vou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 -
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Supplemental
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Supplemental
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
There will be no increase in impervious surface due to this project.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
There will be no increase in impervious surface due to this project.
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?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
El Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes X❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
E] Yes ❑X 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
El Yes ❑X 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.
This project will not result in an additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there will be an increase in water
quality within the project, due to the restoration and enhancement of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, excluding livestock, and the
establishment of a conservation to be protected in perpetuity.
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.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑X Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA 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
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC SHPO GIS Database and confirmation from coordination with SHPO.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
See Supplemental
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Firm Panel 3710584200L eff. 5/18/2009
Brad Breslow
e -P � �
8/6/2019
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

PCN Supplemental Information
Scout Mitigation Site
Nationwide Permit 27
Pre -Construction Notification
Name and address of the Applicant:
Resource Environmental Solutions
c/o Brad Breslow
302 Jefferson Street. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

PCN Supplemental Information - Scout Mitigation Project
A. Applicant Information
3. Owner Information
(3a) Name(s) on
Recorded Deed
Environmental Banc and Exchange
Nancy Sparks Miller
(3B) Deed Book and
Page No.
00179/0006
00186/0050
3d Street Address
Off Farmington Rd
903 Spillman Road
3e City, State, Zip
Mocksville, NC 27028-0000
Mocksville, NC 27028-0000
B. Proiect Information and Prior Proiect History
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the proiect at
the time of this application:
The Scout Mitigation Site (the "Project") is located within a rural watershed in Davie County,
approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run.
he Project is located within the Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources
(NCDWR) sub -basin 03-07-02 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14 -digit hydrologic unit code
(HUC) 03040101160010. The Project area is contained within two parcels, where the conservation
easement totals 13.22 acres. Hauser Creek is the main hydrologic feature in the Project. There are also two
unnamed tributaries and one wetland area included within the Project. Land -use around the Project is
characterized by active pasture and woodland. The total drainage area for the Project is 810 acres (1.26
mi2). Primary land use within the rural watershed consists of approximately 49% agriculture, 39% forest,
and 8% residential. Impervious area covers approximately two percent of the total watershed. Due to its
location and proposed improvements, the Project will provide numerous ecological and water quality
benefits within the Yadkin River Basin.
There is currently a total of 2,801 existing linear feet of stream, and is made up of Hauser Creek, and two
unnamed tributaries (CHI and CH2) that drain to Hauser Creek, and ultimately to the Yadkin River. There
is one wetland located within the project (Wetland D), that is approximately 0.75 acres in size. Furthermore,
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any
potential wetland areas within the Project
In general, all or portions of Hauser Creek, CH1, and CH2 do not function to their full potential. Current
conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agricultural land use, and
water diversion. Most portions of the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally
would have prior to agricultural operations. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition where
much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs. Habitat along the majority of the restoration reaches
is poor in that there is little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection for other
aquatic species.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed proiect.
The objective for this stream project is to restore and enhance design natural waterways with the appropriate
cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for
the existing streams complexes. 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.

PCN Supplemental Information - Scout Mitigation Project
The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance, and criteria that are developed during
this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives include restoring the riparian buffer with native
vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating invasive species.
3e. Describe the overall proiect in detail, includiniz the type of equipment to be used.
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of
geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of
analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both
ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank
grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full
restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses
and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides
habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
The Project will include Priority I Restoration and Enhancement Level II. Stream restoration will
incorporate the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from
reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams,
and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of the project and will
be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result of
historic impacts from livestock and channelization performed to promote agricultural and residential
activities. Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the Project area where
much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture or maintained field is present up
to the edge of the existing channel.
The Project design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the onsite
streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and floodplain
features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical design techniques
were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Engineering analysis will be performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach based design. A combination of methods will be used to estimate bankfull flows, and
flows corresponding to other significant storm events. A HEC -RAS model will then be used to simulate
water surface elevations of flows generated by the hydrologic analysis. The development of the HEC
model is an important component to the design; therefore, model input parameters are field verified when
possible. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as bankfull or
dominant discharge) will be determined. The subsequent design will be based on this calculated
discharge. As part of the design process, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply will be performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of windshield surveys, existing land use data, and
historical aerial photography, followed up by ground truthing, will be analyzed to assess existing and past
watershed conditions and to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment
supply. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data, watershed
characterizations, and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be confirmed using the Stable Channel
Design function and/or the Sediment Transport Analysis components within HEC -RAS in conjunction
with shear stress and velocity analyses.

PCN Supplemental Information - Scout Mitigation Project
Geomorphic and habitat studies will be performed concurrently with the engineering analyses. While
stream design will be verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable
habitat features will be derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both in -stream
and riparian habitat features will be designed. In -stream structures will be used throughout the project to
act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank
stability may further be enhanced through the installation of brush mattresses, live stakes and cuttings
bundles.
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from on-site to the
elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel, 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 minimum 50 -foot conservation easement which will be fenced to
exclude livestock as needed.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
Reach HC3 — This reach begins on the south end of the project and flows north towards the
Mockingbird Mitigation Site, transitioning off site through a proposed 24 LF of 48 -inch double barrel
RCP at a 40 -foot -wide conservation easement break. This is the main reach of the project and is
proposed to restore 2,686 LF. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent to
the reach. Restoration activities will include constructing a new channel within the natural valley with
appropriate dimensions and pattern and backfilling the abandoned channel. In -stream structures such
as log sills, brush toes, rock cross vanes, and log vanes will be installed for stability and to improve
habitat. Habitat will further be improved through buffer plantings. Proposed buffer activities will
improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and
sediment loads to the channel. A hunting blind near the northern portion of the reach will be removed,
as well as an existing crossing.
Reach CH1— This reach is a tributary on the western side of HO and flows east. This reach totals
348 linear feet of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent
to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through supplemental buffer
plantings. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank will filter runoff from
adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach CH2 — This reach is a tributary on the western side of HO and flows east. This reach totals
110 linear feet of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent
to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through supplemental buffer
plantings. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank will filter runoff from
adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.

PCN Supplemental Information - Scout Mitigation Project
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
2h. Comments:
Wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the existing wetland will be
minimized by the restoration plan. Creating a new stream channel and enhancing existing 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. There will be a total of 0.29 acres of wetland impacts, where
0.26 acres are permanent impacts, and the remaining 0.03 acres are temporary impacts.
3i. Comments
Impacts due to the relocation of the stream to natural valley will provide a net gain in ecological function
to the stream and wetland system. Restoration is proposed along this reach to address channel degradation
and bank erosion: Stream Impact 1, the existing length is 2,484 linear feet, and the new length will be 2,686
linear feet. Furthermore, the extension of CH2 through the old foot print of HC3 is accounted for in Stream
Impact 1.
Two stream impacts are associated with the installation of a culvert (Stream Impact 2, and Stream Impact
3). These impacts will occur between the Scout Mitigation Project and the Mockingbird Mitigation Project.
Stream Impact 2, is the temporary impact due to the installation of a 48 -inch double barrel culvert; where
Stream Impact 3 is the permanent impact due to the culvert installation.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in desieninz proiect:
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were
considered when designing the Scout Mitigation project. This project should uplift the ecological quality
of streams and wetlands on site. The existing channel length is 2,801 LF. The proposed project will result
in 3,144 LF of stream.
Stream Mitigation
Proposed Reach
Mitigation Type
Existing Length
(LF)
Proposed Length
(LF)
HC3
Restoration
2,484
2,686
CHI
Enhancement II
249
348
CH2
Enhancement II
68
110
Total
2,801
3,144
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts throueh 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.

PCN Supplemental Information - Scout Mitigation Project
F. Supplementary Information
8.b. If yes, explain how proiect meets FEMA requirements
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project includes a mapped
FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of flooding). The design and permitting
of the mitigation work will include coordination with the Davie County Floodplain Administrator and
permitting a FEMA No -Rise Certification or CLOMR/LOMR. Construction access is not constrained
throughout the Project area. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream or
downstream of the Project. The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 5842
(map number 3710584200L), effective date 05/18/2009.

Aquatic Resource Table — Revised Post Survey for the Scout Mitigation Project (SAW -2017-01505)
Originally submitted with the Mockingbird JD (SAW -2017-01469)
Length
Site
Reach/Wetland
Latitude
Longitude
(LF)
Type
ID
/Area
(ac)
Scout
WA
-80.514835
36.028026
0.75 ac
Wetland Waters of the US
Non -Wetland Waters of the
Scout
HC3
-80.516072
36.030105
2,484
US
Non -Wetland Waters of the
Scout
CHI
-80.517263
36.030583
249
US
Non -Wetland Waters of the
Scout
CH2
-80.515734
36.029308
68
US

c
_a
Q
I'mevillc Rd
P ette's R,d4
Farmington
D
K
0
� SPiIlry,d
E n,h
� a
WIN'S ttd
O
K
O
2
tQ�
y�e
Triple M TO
c„oa
m
-,
. / Galax
0
a Lenoir
Legend g ”
Scout Mitigation Project
Proposed Easement °I
A10fganto '.,
rooktord
Service Area - 03040101 011-11, n eui
Mooresville
TLW -03040101160010 ndbnu Rd
N
Date: 2/18/2019
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
" _ E Drawn by: GDS res
`s Scout Mitigation Project
Checked by: MDE
0 1,000 2.000
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet
a
\t�ae�
5Q�
IIID e
6 Y
D
K
0
� SPiIlry,d
E n,h
� a
WIN'S ttd
O
K
O
2
tQ�
y�e
Triple M TO
c„oa
m
-,
. / Galax
0
a Lenoir
Legend g ”
Scout Mitigation Project
Proposed Easement °I
A10fganto '.,
rooktord
Service Area - 03040101 011-11, n eui
Mooresville
TLW -03040101160010 ndbnu Rd
N
Date: 2/18/2019
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
" _ E Drawn by: GDS res
`s Scout Mitigation Project
Checked by: MDE
0 1,000 2.000
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet

fRJI ]4.�
R
a 0Q ,:.
"A �r
9.
;w
msG
C
ArA
ry �,
Legend °��
Propsed Easement,
C_ AIL
N Figure 3 - NRCS Davie County Date: 2/18/2019
W Soil Survey (1995)
Drawn by: GDS res
0 500s Scout Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
1.000
Feet
Davie County, North Carolina nch = 1,000 feet

%
ti
IC
Ile
A 0
0 KIN CO I N
CO X 4 X
C6
-N
'All
v
78"6
-60
;;ding 5 0
/9'J
-4
`\% cis > ( ( - t J \� ✓�v ( tP� V J .r
Uk
0
Sol
J9
22
14
%
All.
\J I
J �
i I ow A
Legend764
Proposed Easement
Figure 2 - USGS Farmington Date: 2/18/2019
Quadrangle (1967)
Drawn by: GDS
Scout Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE res
500 1,000
Feet
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 2,000 feet
I I I I

1
S2 & SS3
S1
Le end
Proposed Easement W1 & W2.
Project Parcel
Mockingbird Mitigation Project
Existing Wetland S4
- Existing TOB
Impact ID Temp/Perm/Zone Aquatic Resource Area/Length
Proposed TOB W1 Temp WD 0.26 ac
W2 Perm WD 0.03 ac
Permanent Wetland Impact S1 Perm HC3 2,484 ft
S2 Temp HC3 20ft
Temporary Wetland Impact S3 Perm HC3 48ft
S4 Temp CH3 122ft
N
- Date: 8/5/2019
Figure 6 - Impacts Map
w
s Drawn by: MDE
N Scout Mitigation Project
Checked by: JRM
0 150 300
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch =300 feet
pres
�

c
cz
cu
0 resi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
C)
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30
60
2" = FULL SCALE
1 " = HALF SCALE
6i
C)
o
N
0
0
CL
O
Z
_O
I-
U
Z
O
z
O
o
LL
cr
O
�
Z
LU
i
OQ
0-1
LU
LL
ZC)
Z
OU)
(n
Lu
w
LU
Y
cr
Q
>
W
-JW
W
cr
m
Q_
Q
z
J
Lu O
�
� Q
U
z =
M
� �
2
U
Q o
cD z
=
Q
>
F.-
w
Z
0
0
w U) w
w
\
Q \
J
~
Z Q
U 0
Z
w
O
Q
o_
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
SC8

c
cz
cu
II
REAC h C h 4 STA I+ 17 TO STA 1+ 60
EX15TING CHANNEL TO BE
ABANDONED AND BACKFILLED I /� I I� / / /// 11 J I �I 6.01
SEE DETAIL D2 / I I IIII I II
BANKFULL STAGE
536
TYPICAL CRO55 SECTION
I
/ I ili
P Nis0+00
\ N F— — L 91 0+50 _)
\ E. INV.=/ZZ.7tJ..\ ice— 1— — — 91 — —
I \ \
I +90Z
\ /
(0
537
\ I \ \ \ I TIE INTO PROP05ED
GHA H
NNEL C3 I I (r
A\
><
\ / / J
\ \ \ \ x REAC H C3_ II
(5HEET 5 4) /
\\ _ � � � \ � ' / m II►I ► ; �\ � � III I) \ l
I I
735
730
725
720
715
735
730
725
720
715
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
SCALE: HOP, 1''=30'; VERT 1''=3'
0 resi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
1 " = HALF SCALE
6i
C)
o
N
00
CLo
z
0
z
0
z
O
O
LL
F-
0-
11--
cr
0
�
Z
LU
i
o
QLU
Q
z
z
o
(n
W0U)
W
J
Y
cC
Q
>
w
-jW
W
cr
cr
Q_
Q
Z_
J
LLI
I—
� Q
U
Z =
O
_
EXI5TING
OF BANK
TOP
U
Q o
U Z
EXI5TING GRADE
ALONG STREAM
CENTERLINE
~
>
Q
F.-
W
_
0 0
w Cn W_
6i
\\
Q /
J
~
z Q
U 0
Z
w
O
Q
o_
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
SC9
PR
PO ED
HAN
EL 5ED
N
0�
�
u
w
w
°o
u
Q
TIE REACH Ch4 INTO
PROF05ED BED OF
REACH HC3
�
—
C\
u
w
w
Ln
u
Q
735
730
725
720
715
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
SCALE: HOP, 1''=30'; VERT 1''=3'
0 resi
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: [phone]
www.res.us
SEAL
FULL SCALE: 1"=30
0 30
60
2 FULL SCALE
1 " = HALF SCALE
6i
C)
o
N
00
CLo
z
0
z
0
z
O
O
LL
F-
0-
11--
cr
0
�
Z
LU
i
o
QLU
Q
z
z
o
(n
W0U)
W
J
Y
cC
Q
>
w
-jW
W
cr
cr
Q_
Q
Z_
J
LLI
I—
� Q
U
Z =
O
_
U
Q o
U Z
=
~
>
Q
F.-
W
0 0
w Cn W_
6i
\\
Q /
J
~
z Q
U 0
Z
w
O
Q
o_
o
PROJECT NUMBER:
0381
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
AFM
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
SC9

Aquatic Resource Table (SAW -2017-01469)
Site
Reach/
Wetland ID
Latitude
Longitude
Length (LF)
/Area ac
Type
Scout
WD
-80.514835
36.028026
0.75 ac
Wetland Waters of the US
Scout
HC3
-80.516072
36.030105
2,484
Non -Wetland Waters of the US
Scout
CH1
-80.517263
36.030583
249
Non -Wetland Waters of the US
Scout
I CH2
1 -80.515734 1
36.029308
1 68
1 Non -Wetland Waters of the US
Scout
I CH3"
1 -80.514051 1
36.027800
1 127
Non -Wetland Waters of the US
* Added to the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on July 18, 2019

CH3
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 7-18-19
Project/Site: Scout
Latitude: 36,0278
Evaluator: Schmid
County: Davie
Longitude: -80.5137
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 22.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =11.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal = 6 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: channel dry
in woods and farm field
Sketch:

CH4
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 7-18-1 g
Project/Site: Scout
Latitude: 36.03204
Evaluator: Schmid
County: Davie
Longitude: -80.5165
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 15.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal = 2 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: channel dry
in woods and farm field
Sketch:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Scout City/County: Davie Sampling Date: 18 -Jul -19
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 36.03216 Long.: -80.51695
Soil Map Unit Name: Codorus loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Slope: 0.0% / 0.0 °
Datum:
Yes * No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑'
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ NO O
within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reauired; check all that aoDly)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC -neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ NO 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No O
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ NO
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes ❑ No ❑'
Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C . �-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus argutus
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
3. Liriodendron tulipifera
4. Robinia pseudoacacia
5. Cephalanthus occidentalis
6. $ymp10Co5 tinctoria
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Juncus effusus
2. Solidacio altissima
3. Lonicera japonica
4. Phytolacca americana
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: DPI
Absolute
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover
Cover
Status
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
o
❑
o.o°r°
Total Number of Dominant
0
-
❑
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20.0% (A/B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
081- species 5 x 1= 5
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
0
El
0.0%
FAC species 25 x 3 = 75
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 90 x 4 = 360
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 135 (A) 470 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.481
0
❑
0.0°r°
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Dominance Test is > SO%
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
0
= Total Cover
L] Morphological ical Ada tations 1 (Provide supporting
10❑
18.2%
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
20d❑
36.4%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
10d❑
18.2%
FACU
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5
❑
9.1%
FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5 ❑ 9.1% OBL
5
❑
9.1%
FAC
Four Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
55
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
❑
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
15
18.8%
FACW
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (I m) tall.
40❑
50.0%
FACU
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
20d❑
25.0%
FACU
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
5
❑
6.3%
FACU
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
-
in height.
0
Ll
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (I to 6 m) in height.
80
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (I
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
0
❑
0.0%
height.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes NO 0
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
1
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Locz
Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/4 100
Clay Loam
8-12 10YR 4/3 90
7.5YR 5/6 10
Clay Loam 2% iron -manganese masses
12-18+ 10YR 4/2 85
10YR 4/6 15
Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
F1Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
[71 Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MCRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3 Indicators of vegetation and
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
mushydrophytic
hydrology
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Scout City/County: Davie Sampling Date: 18 -Jul -19
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP -2
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 36.03235 Long.: -80.5171
Soil Map Unit Name: Codorus loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Slope: 0.0% / 0.0 °
Datum:
Yes * No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑'
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ NO O
within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reauired; check all that aoDly)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC -neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ NO 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No O
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ NO
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes ❑ No ❑'
Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C . �-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus argutus
2. Salix nigra
3. Symplocos tinctoria
4. Cephalanthus occidentalis
5. Liriodendron tulipifera
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Solidago altissima
2. Juncus effusus
3. Lonicera japonica
4. Phytolacca americana
5. Dichanthelium clandestinum
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: DP.2
Absolute
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover
Cover
Status
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
o
❑
o.o°r°
Total Number of Dominant
0
-
❑
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25.0% (A/B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
081- species 10 x 1 = 10
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
0
El
0.0%
FAC species 25 x 3 = 75
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 80 x 4 = 320
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 125 (A) 425 (e)
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.400
0
❑
0.0°r°
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Dominance Test is > SO%
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
0
= Total Cover
L] Morphological ical Ada tations 1 (Provide supporting
15
d❑
37.5%
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5
❑
12.5%
OBL
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
5
❑
12.5%
FAC
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5
❑
12.5%
OBL
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
10 d❑ 25.0% FACU
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
40
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
40❑
47.1%
FACU
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
10
❑
11.8%
FACW
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
10
❑
11.8%
FACU
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
5
❑
5.9%
FACU
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
-
in height.
20
d❑
23.5%
FAC
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
85
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
0
❑
0.0%
height.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes NO 0
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 4/4
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Scout City/County: Davie Sampling Date: 18 -Jul -19
Applicant/Owner: RES State: NC Sampling Point: DP -3
Investigator(s): J. Schmid Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 36.03278 Long.: -80.5171
Soil Map Unit Name: Codorus loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes * No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Slope: 0.0% / 0.0 °
Datum:
Yes * No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑'
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ NO O
within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reauired; check all that aoDly)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC -neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ NO 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No O
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ NO
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes ❑ No ❑'
Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C . �-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Cephalanthus occidentalis
2. Salix nigra
3. Liquidambar styraciflua
4. Rubus argutus
5.
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Juncus effusus
2. Lonicera japonica
3. Solidago altissima
4. Dichanthelium clandestinum
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: DP.3
Absolute
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover
Cover
Status
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
o
❑
o.o°r°
Total Number of Dominant
0
-
❑
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
081- species 10 x 1 = 10
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
0
El
0.0%
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 70 x 4 = 280
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 120 (A) 400 (e)
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.333
0
❑
0.0°r°
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Dominance Test is > SO%
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
0
= Total Cover
L] Morphological ical Ada tations 1 (Provide supporting
5
❑
12.5%
OBL
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5
❑
12.5%
OBL
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
10d❑
25.0%
FAC
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
20❑
50.0%
FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
0 ❑ 0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
40
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
❑
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
10
12.5%
FACW
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (f m) tall.
10
❑
12.5%
FACU
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
40
d❑
50.0%
FACU
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20
d❑
25.0%
FAC
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
-
in height.
0
Ll
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Five Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0°r°
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
❑
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (f to 6 m) in height.
80
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (f
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
0
❑
0.0%
height.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes NO 0
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Soil
Sampling Point: DP -3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/4
8-16 2.5YR 5/4 60 10YR 5/8 40 Sandy Clay Loam 2% iron manganese masses
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
F1Histosol (Al)
❑Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
[71 Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MCRA 147,148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (SS) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 3 Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0