20151170 Ver 1_401 Application_20151115

CWS
Carolina Wetland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
PAID
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR —NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
Date: 11/5/2015
CWS Project #: 2015 -3535
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
201511 ?0
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
0. DATE COPIE S DESCRWT10
1 11/5/2015 5 1 Application for WQC 3890
2 1 11/3/2015 1 1 Application Fee ($570)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use El Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen, Please find attached five copies of the Pre - Construction Notification and application for
WQC 3890 for the Creek's Landing project. A check for the application fee of $570 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
74;
-�D
NOV 0 6 2015
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist DENR - WATC,q REsol,srrco
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]:' Creek's Landing "
2. Work Type: Private ❑l Institutional ❑ Government R Commercial
v
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 63d and 63e]:
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 135 acres of property into a single - family
residential subdivision.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
- Carolina Development Services; POC: Jonathan McCall
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 —or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 65b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and /or Location Description [PCN Form Bib]:
South from the intersection of Weddington Road and Airport Road in Monroe, North Carolina
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form Bia]: 060- 030 -23, 060 - 060 -12, and 060 - 030 -15
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form AM]: Union
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Monroe
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: UTs to East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Catawba (HUC 03040103)
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 R Section 10 & 404 F1
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 29
Regional General Permit #
❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
FN y o s 2
ors ;
Revised 20150602
• WA

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 (office)
704 - 527 -1133 (fax)
November 3, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
and Water Quality Certification No. 3890
Creek's Landing
Union Co., North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Dear Mr. Elliott and Ms. Higgins:
The Creek's Landing site is approximately 135 acres in extent and is located south from the intersection of
Weddington Road and Airport Road in Union County, North Carolina (Figure 1, attached). The purpose of this
project is to develop a residential subdivision in a developing area of Union County, North Carolina. Carolina
Development Services, LLC, has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401
permitting services for this project. An executed Agent Authorization Form is attached.
Applicant Name: Carolina Development Services; POC: Mr. Johnathan McCall
Mailing Address: 6707 Fairview Road, Suite B, Charlotte, NC 28210
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: 704 - 401 -7185
Street Address of Project: south from the intersection of Weddington Road and Airport Road in Union
County, North Carolina
Waterway: UTs to East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
Basin: Catawba (HUC 03040103)
City: Union County Incorporated
County: Union
Tax Parcel ID numbers: 060 - 030 -23, 060 - 060 -12, and 060 - 030 -15
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.001359 °, -80. 655074°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Matthews, NC (1988) and Waxhaw, NC (1986)
Site Conditions
The project area consists mostly of forested land and open fields (Figure 2, attached). Typical on -site vegetation
includes willow oak (Quecus phellos), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), winged elm (Mmus alata), red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), sawtooth blackberry (Rubes argutus), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and muscadine (Vitis roduntifoha).
NORTH CAROLINA ' SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
According to the Soil Survey of Union County' (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on -site soils consist of Badin
channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (BaQ, Badin channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (BdB2),
Badin channery silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (BdC2), Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded (ChA), Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes (CmB), and Tarrus gravelly silty clay
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (TbB2). Chewacla silt loam (ChA) is somewhat poorly drained and Cid channery
silt loam (CmB) is moderately well drained. Badin channery silt loam and silty clay loams (BaC, BdB2, and
BdC2, respectively) and Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam (TbB2) are well drained. Chewacla silt loam (ChA) is
listed as hydric in the National Hydric Soils List2 and as having hydric inclusions in the North Carolina Hydric
Soils List for Union County'
Jurisdictional Delineation
On February 16 and 20, 2015, CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) and
Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio, WPIT, delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within
the project area (Figures 5a and 5b, attached). Jurisdictional areas were delineated (flagged in the field),
classified, and surveyed with a sub -meter Trimble Geo7X GPS using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
( USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual, the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook,
with further technical guidance from the Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplement, dated April
2012. A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of on -site jurisdictional wetland areas is attached as
DPI. A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of on -site non jurisdictional upland areas is attached
as DP2. The locations of these data points are identified as DPI and DP2 on Figure 5 (attached).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D- shaped dip net taking
photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes classification) within
each on -site stream channel.
Results
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are eight jurisdictional
seasonal RPW stream channels (Streams A -H) and four jurisdictional wetlands (Wetlands AA -DD) located
within the project area (Figures 5a and 5b, attached). On -Site streams are unnamed tributaries to East Fork
Twelve Mile Creek. East Fork Twelve Mile Creek is part of the Santee River Basin (HUC 03050103)4 and is
classified as "Class C" waters by the NCDWR. According to the NCDWR, Class C Waters are defined as:
"Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture."
On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.47 acre, including 4,067 linear feet (10 of
jurisdictional stream channel. On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are summarized in Table 1.
' United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2014 Sod Survey of Union County, North Carolina
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012 National Hydric Soils List by State, accessed at
http / /www nres usda gov /wps /portal /nres /mam/soils /use/hydrnc/
' United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
° "HUC" is the Hydrologic Unit Code U S Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
2

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Table 1. Summary of on -site _jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Perennial Streams
Perennial streams are those that typically have year -round flow. These streams typically have greater
biological resources than intermittent streams, and are capable of supporting those resources that require
perennial flow. This section describes the on -site perennial streams and the field observations supporting
this determination.
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are two perennial stream
channels (Streams A and B, R5UB25) located within the project area.
Stream A originates off site and flows west near the northwestern property boundary for approximately 1,459
linear feet (If) within the project boundaries. The lower 1,097 if of Stream A is classified as a perennial stream.
Stream A ultimately drains to East Fork Twelve Mile Creek off site. Perennial Stream A exhibits strong
continuity of bed and bank, strong baseflow, moderate sinuosity, moderate presence of depositional bars and
benches, and a weak presence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Perennial Stream A scored 33.5 out of a possible 63
' R5UB2 = Perennial stream with unconsolidated sand bottom, Cowardm et al Classification System, 1979
Stream
Jurisdictional
Intermittent/
Classification
NCDWR Stream
Length
Acreage
Feature
Perennial
Point
Classification Score
Linear Feet (If)
(ac.)
(SCP)
Perennial
SCP1
33.5
1,097
0.101
Stream A
Intermittent
SCP2
27.5
362
0.025
Perennial
SCP3
33
308
0.035
Stream B
Intermittent
SCP4
21
703
0.048
Stream C
Intermittent
SCP5
24.5
159
0.011
Stream D
Intermittent
SCP6
21
277
0.019
Stream E
Intermittent
SCP7
20
319
0 022
Stream F
Intermittent
SCP8
19.5
63
0 004
Stream G
Intermittent
SCP9
26.5
676
0.047
Stream H
Intermittent
SCPIO
19
133
0.009
Stream Total:
4,067 If
0.321
acre
Acreage
Jurisdictional Feature
Data Point (DP)
(ac.)
Wetland AA
DPI
0.043
Wetland BB
DPI
0.100
Wetland CC
DPI
0.004
Wetland DD
DPI
0.004
0.151
Wetland Total:
acre
0.472
Total Acreage:
acre
Perennial Streams
Perennial streams are those that typically have year -round flow. These streams typically have greater
biological resources than intermittent streams, and are capable of supporting those resources that require
perennial flow. This section describes the on -site perennial streams and the field observations supporting
this determination.
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are two perennial stream
channels (Streams A and B, R5UB25) located within the project area.
Stream A originates off site and flows west near the northwestern property boundary for approximately 1,459
linear feet (If) within the project boundaries. The lower 1,097 if of Stream A is classified as a perennial stream.
Stream A ultimately drains to East Fork Twelve Mile Creek off site. Perennial Stream A exhibits strong
continuity of bed and bank, strong baseflow, moderate sinuosity, moderate presence of depositional bars and
benches, and a weak presence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Perennial Stream A scored 33.5 out of a possible 63
' R5UB2 = Perennial stream with unconsolidated sand bottom, Cowardm et al Classification System, 1979

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WQC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, attached). Photograph A
(attached) is representative of the perennial portion of the Stream A.
Stream B originates near the center of the site and flows south towards the southern property boundary for
approximately 1,011 if before continuing off site. The lower 3081f of Stream B is classified as a perennial
stream. Perennial Stream B exhibits strong continuity of bed and bank, strong baseflow, moderate sinuosity of
channel, moderate presence of depositional bars and benches, and a weak presence of iron oxidizing bacteria.
Perennial Stream B scored 33 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP3, attached). Photograph B (attached) is representative of the perennial portion
of the Stream B
Intermittent Streams
Intermittent streams are those streams that exhibit continuous flow seasonally. This flow regime is the result of
a lowering of the water table during dry periods that stops groundwater discharge to the stream channel.
Intermittent streams do not typically support aquatic life requiring year -round flow to support reproductive and
maturation stages.
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are eight seasonal stream
channels (Streams A -H, R4UB26) located within the project area.
Stream A originates off site and flows west near the northwestern property boundary for approximately 1,459 if
within the project boundaries. The upper 3621f of Stream A is classified as a seasonal stream. Seasonal Stream
A exhibits strong bed and bank, weak baseflow, and an absence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal Stream A
scored 27.5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent
status (SCP2, attached).
Stream B originates near the center of the site and flows south towards the southern property boundary for
approximately 1,011 if before continuing off site. The upper 7031f of Stream B is classified as a seasonal
stream. Seasonal Stream B exhibits moderate continuity of bed and bank, weak baseflow, weak in- channel
structure, and an absence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal Stream B scored 21 out of a possible 63 points on
the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP4, attached).
Stream C originates near the southwestern boundary and flows west along the southwestern property boundary
for approximately 159 If before continuing off site. Seasonal Stream C exhibits strong continuity of bed and
bank, moderate in- channel structure, weak baseflow, and an absence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal
Stream C scored 24.5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating
intermittent status (SCP5, attached).
Stream D originates off site and flows southeast in the southwestern portion of the property for approximately
277 If before continuing off site. Seasonal Stream D exhibits moderate continuity of bed and bank, weak in-
channel structure, weak baseflow, and an absence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal Stream D scored 21 out
of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP6,
attached).
Stream E originates in the northwestern portion of the property and flows southwest along the northern property
boundary for approximately 3191f before continuing off site. Seasonal Stream E exhibits moderate continuity
of bed and bank, weak in- channel structure, weak baseflow, an absence of sinuosity, and an absence of iron
oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal Stream E scored 20 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream
Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP7, attached).
e R4UB2 = Intermittent stream with unconsolidated sand bottom, Cowardm et al Classification System, 1979
4

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Stream F originates in the northwestern portion of the property and flows southwest for approximately 631f
before its confluence with Seasonal Stream E. Seasonal Stream F exhibits moderate continuity of bed and bank,
weak in- channel structure, weak baseflow, weak particle size of stream substrate, and an absence of iron
oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal Stream F scored 19.5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream
Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP8, attached).
Stream G originates in the eastern portion of the property and flows south for approximately 676 linear feet (if)
before becoming non jurisdictional near the southeastern property corner. Seasonal Stream G exhibits moderate
continuity of bed and bank, moderate in- channel structure, moderate baseflow, weak sinuosity, and an absence
of iron oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal Stream G scored 26.5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream
Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP9, attached).
Stream H originates near the southeastern corner of the property and flows southeast for approximately 133 If
before tapering off. Seasonal Stream H exhibits weak continuity of bed and bank, weak in- channel structure,
weak baseflow, and an absence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Seasonal Stream C scored 19 out of a possible 63
points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP10, attached).
Biological sampling within Seasonal Streams A -H revealed an absence of macrobenthos, crayfish, and
amphibians. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present at least three months in a typical
year. Photographs C -I (attached) are representative of Seasonal Streams A -H, respectively.
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as: "Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. "' The USACE uses three parameters to identify jurisdictional wetlands. These parameters are as
follows: 1) Hydrophytic Vegetation, 2) Wetland Hydrology, and 3) Hydric Soils. Except in certain atypical
situations, all three parameters must be present in order for an area to be determined to be a jurisdictional
wetland. This section describes each on -site jurisdictional wetland and the field observations that led to their
determinations.
Wetlands AA -DD are classified as forested wetlands (PFO18). Figure 5 (attached) depicts the locations of these
wetlands. A Wetland Determination Data Form 1 (DPI) is representative of these wetlands. Wetlands AA -DD
exhibit low chroma soils, presence of reduced iron, surface water depth of 0 -2 inches, and saturation to the
surface. Dominant vegetation in this wetland includes willow oak, sweetgum, green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Photographs J- M (attached) are representative of
Wetlands AA- DD, respectively.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 2, 2015 to determine the
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by
the project. In a response letter, dated July 19, 2015, SHPO states that they are "aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project ". The SHPO response letter is attached. CWS also
' Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
WOW = Broad - leaved deciduous forested wetland, Cowardin et al Classification System, 1979

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WQC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3535
consulted the SHPO online GIS service9 and National Register of Historic Places for Union County'o and
found no sites of architectural, historical, or archaeological significance within the project limits.
Protected Species
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer"
on July 1, 2015 to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened
species, or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on this review, there are no records of
federally - protected species within the project limits. A copy of the data review report is attached. `
The Northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the
white -nose syndrome disease. Habitat for the Northern long -eared bat includes forested areas of any age,
rocky areas with boulders, and culverts greater than four feet wide. Due to recent population declines of
almost 89% caused by white -nose syndrome and continued spread of the disease, the Northern long -eared
bat now receives protection as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. A Threatened
species is defined as a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'Z.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is requesting the documentation of amount of wooded acres
cleared in connection with any construction project that takes place within any county shown on the June
30, 2015 White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map, attached. This project takes place within the Northern
long -eared bat habitat range. Due to the nature of this subdivision construction project, approximately 40
acres of wooded area will be cleared for this project and may trigger the need for a bat survey. Please
note that no physical surveying for potential habitat within this project has not been included in
this scope at this time.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 135 acres of property into a single - family
subdivision located in Union County, North Carolina (Figure 6, attached). Union County is experiencing
rapid population growth due its proximity to Charlotte, NC, Fort Mill and Rock Hill, SC and there is a
need for residential housing in order to meet the current demand. This project is not a phased project and
adjoining subdivisions are all owned by individuals and /or companies not associated with the Creek's
Landing project.
Road crossings are unavoidable in order to develop the site while meeting local planning ordinances
requiring appropriate emergency vehicle access to all parts of the subdivision (Figure 6, attached).
Avoidance
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
Construction activities and impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with all
conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890. All work will be constructed
in the dry. No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed.
The proposed road crossing is necessary in order to complete the subdivision and provide sufficient
ingress and egress for emergency vehicles throughout the development. Stream B divides the southern
9 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http / /gis ncdcr gov/hpoweb/ Accessed June 23, 2015
° National Register of Historic Places for Union County http //www nationalregisterofhistoncplaces com/nc /union/state html
' North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https //ncnhde natureserve org/, Accessed July 1, 2015
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1973 Endangered Species Act http //www fws gov /endangered/laws- policies/
R

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
portion of the property in half. Therefore, alternative options for road access while avoiding impacts to
jurisdictional streams are limited. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances to downstream waters.
In an attempt to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a "No Build"
alternative was considered. The property was purchased for the purpose of providing residential housing to
meet the growth and demand of an area in Union County experiencing significant population growth. A "No
Build" option would not meet the project goals of providing necessary housing to meet the current demand.
Therefore, the No Build Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
Minimization
The original plan for the proposed road crossing was a piped conveyance instead of the currently proposed
culvert (Figure 7, attached). This original plan included a 153 If, 30- inch, "L "- shaped reinforced concrete pipe
(RCP) with a 151f rip rap apron at the outlet. A straight culvert is the favored design as it will maintain aquatic
life passage, is easier to maintain, and has a lower potential to clog versus a piped conveyance.
Permanent impacts associated with this design totaled 167 linear feet of perennial stream channel. To avoid
greater impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., a straight culvert with stream relocation was chosen in lieu
of a piped conveyance (Figures 8 and 9, attached). The stream relocation plan is discussed on the next page
(page 8).
Impacts associated with the straight culvert design were reduced through the use of headwalls at the inlet and
outlet of the proposed culvert in order to minimize the length required for the proposed crossing. The proposed
culvert was also designed to maintain bankfull channel dimensions upstream and downstream of the proposed
culvert.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts wherever possible. The currently proposed site
plan was developed as a result of this alternatives analysis and avoidance and minimization process. We believe
that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent practicable.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 29, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters
associated with this project are limited to a total of 124 linear feet (if) of jurisdictional stream channel
(Stream B). Permanent impacts to Stream B are the result of the construction of a road crossing and
stream relocation. Additionally, the project proposes 125 if of temporary impacts to jurisdictional stream
channel due the proposed stream relocation. Proposed impacts are summarized in Table 2 (next page).
7

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Table 2. Proposed impacts to Jurisdiction waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional
Impact
Temporary
Impacts
Feature
Type
or
(linear feet)
Impacts (acre)
Permanent
Road Crossing (Culvert)
Permanent
109
0.01
Stream B
Stream relocation
Temporary
125
0.01
Stream relocation (net
permanent
15
0.00
loss of waters
Total Permanent Stream Impacts
124
0.01 acre
Total Temporary Stream Impacts
125
0.01 acre
Total Stream Impacts
2491f
0.02 acre
Road Crossing
The proposed road crossing is located in the southwestern portion of the property (Figure 6, attached).
The installation of a culvert for this road crossing will result in 1091f of permanent impacts to Perennial
Stream B. The proposed road crossing will utilize a 100 - linear foot, 30 -inch reinforced concrete pipe
(RCP) with headwalls at both the inlet and outlet of the culvert. The proposed culvert will be buried at
least six inches below the bed of the channel to allow passage of aquatic life and maintain low flows. A
plan view is attached as Figure 8.
Stream relocation
To avoid greater impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the project proposes to relocate 125 linear
feet of Perennial Stream B immediately downstream of the proposed culvert (Figures 8 and 9, attached).
However, an extreme bend in Stream B makes it difficult to relocate the stream linear foot for linear foot
and thus creates a loss of 15 if during the relocation of the existing stream to the relocated stream.
Relocated Stream B will be constructed to maintain low flows and will have similar channel dimensions
as the original channel. In- stream structures will provide stabilization and prevent upstream incision, as
necessary.
Natural coconut matting, riparian seed, and native plants will be installed on both sides of the relocated
Stream B for bank stabilization and erosion control. Vegetation species will be chosen to fit in with the
existing plant community, as well as add diversity, particularly in the riparian zone. Currently, much of
tho riparian area is dominated by invasive Chinese privet. Chinese privet and other invasive species such
as Japanese honeysuckle will be removed and /or treated.
On behalf of Carolina Development Services, CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification
Application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31, and
pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890.
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated with this project total of less than 150
linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. We believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan
that meets the project goals while avoiding and minimizing impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to
the greatest extent possible. Therefore, our client is not proposing mitigation for this project.

Creek's Landing I November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704 - 408 -1683, or through email at gregg @cws- inc.net should you have
any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
1�6� C, 74 ft-2 � �,
Gregg Antemann, PWS '
Professional Wetland Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
�/� A"44&
Kelly Thames, WPIT
Project Scientist
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Figure 3. Current USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 4. Historic USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 5a. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map — Aerial Overlay
Figure 5b. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 6. Proposed Impacts — Overview
Figure 7. Proposed Impacts — Alternative Analysis
Figure 8. Proposed Impacts — Plan View
Figure 9. Proposed Impacts — Stream Relocation
Agent Authorization Form
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
Preliminary JD Form
NCDWR Stream Classification Forms (SCPI- SCP10)
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP I -DP2)
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs (A -N)
cc: Mr. Jonathan McCall, Carolina Development Services
Mr. Matthew Velkovich, P.E., Summit

• (f1 i3) `� . i
i if
a
4
-. _
\BN 63
rdoftvtl
S
� • •5 � , 1- -~ • � / A �r 662
V
! •; Weddington Road
let
y �
"
-
��;,
Airport 7Road
-
�S .> v
Or 62
r�
� � fit' . ` �, - - . _ x, . � �•
5, �
Legend
• ��_..__
Project Limits
®Excluded Parcel
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: Z5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MATTHEWS, NC, DATED 1988AND WAXHAW, DATED 1986
.-
Nr
}1
SCALES 1" - 2000' DATE 10 -26 -2015
:
USGS Site Location Map FIGL!RI NO
CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY
nV H Creek's Landing
APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY C A R O L I N A
l �nlon Co., North Carolina
KMT WETLAND SERVICES CAN'S Project No. 201_-5 -3535

s
VA
f
s
Legend
Q Project Limits
Excluded Parcel
FIGURE NO
400 200 0 400 Feet 2

B� rat$
TaS BaC MhA
C GBt,f
Ud TaB gaB
- - - - ----� Weddington Raod
ear
TB _ F _ �,- Crab
ChA
2 03
eaB
a BIJ62 ,-
c t B0B2
ChA
i r �
`~ S P ue[ f,ci <d ,
r
t
4
Soils - Description Legend
BaC —Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Bi BdB2 —Badin channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
BdC2 —Badin channery silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded Project Limits
ChA— Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Excluded Parcel
CmB —Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
TM— Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
1.000 500 0 1.000 Feet
REFERENCE HISTORIC USDA -NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF UNION COUNTY, SHEETS 17 AND 22, [),7771
SCALE 1„ : 1000, DATE: 10 -26 -15 Historic USDA -NRCS Soil FIGURE NO
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: Survey of Union Count
2015 -3535 AVH Creek's Landing 4
PPLICANT NO. CHECKED BY CAROLINA Union Co., North Carolina
KMT WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2015 -3535

k 111
MH c�
El
klsr
ti) I
I� (�
----- - - - - --
m � -
- -_ -
1 H -
��pp//�f --
- 9 2 li1E
D9L S
L SrA i
O8 EA PG 07Q
522.25 `
VW8 46M PIG m
-{7 63'33'32
J � `'__yam.
82/` - - \ 92
78 1761
134, B''s•
ae resJ ro J37 w ` — d+ 7,1
C � X73' \
\ LO� A Lor Jtl O Jd LOT Leg L 6r x /
` \rAT.m � Pnrmvs �r� 72 1
\ HClSE Y YM \ \
CAR H A7 IJ Y
_ (AT J17 71
5 70
[or k 9 \\
COT M T 68�
0
LOT Yl' t
z 67 .
z
g = p Inr
~ COT 25
- -/ Cor \
Lo COT YY
RAC a��acaaLLaEE°
Project Limits
29
M
F T
6gYDo a C ST FORK
?l:Y PQ N, CREEK Tf
R S HEATH
ae Do 0077 m rA; as13
Proposed Impacts - Overview
C
� N
42 r m
/ 1
lAnk
SUMMIT
�� �01 ao E A ENG � N- 257 "991
I j5C LE
.
, $'
\� .`R
POINT OF COhiM ENCEMEiJT
1
_- •
O
0
Q�'
NGS MONUMENT
'BRA
NC GRID COORDS.(NAD83 2011)
N(Y) 973,376.86 s
473,37 F7
E( %) 1,519,681.02 5LT
C
� N
42 r m
/ 1
lAnk
SUMMIT
°
�� �01 ao E A ENG � N- 257 "991
I j5C LE
�cr,00
1
Y, F
O Y
�o
°
�� �01 ao E A ENG � N- 257 "991
I j5C LE
�cr,00
1
Y, F
O Y
(I
70 PC /0Y 2
�
LEI
m
o
Cn
PROJECT.
J
J
v
Cr CL
LLI
ILI.
f
�
ORIG. PROJ DATE 06 01,2015
- - - - - - - - - -
J C7
°
Q
I
'FAQ
SHEET.
70 PC /0Y 2
LEI
Cn
J
J
_
Cr CL
LLI
GI:U III �T�I!
ORIG. PROJ DATE 06 01,2015
SCALE .. I "-
25x25 SIGHT TRIAN J 25 RJ 'x25' SIGHT TRIANGLE DRAWN BY RJG
10'k7o'SIGHT DISTANCE 10'x70 SIGHT o1s`ANCE HECRED By MGV
FIG.
. 6
NO- SCALE
°
,.,..

SD 1155-154 PROFILE
[9
64-.\ ,
0 +00 1 +00 2.cp
Proposed impact:
3' - 109 If permanent
impact (culvert)
4
Proposed relocated
stream reach
- 125 If
Proposed Impacts - Plan View and Profile
Kg5Y MAP
Legend
Proposed Culvert
Proposed Impact
Proposed Steam Relocation
Proposed Relocated Stream
...... Avoided Seasonal Stream
® Avoided Perennial Stream
Seasonal Stream B
Perennial Stream B
ED
CD
m
:W
GRAPHIC :GALE
SUMMIT
LAND SERVICES, P.0
1111E :4 ea851
- AN IES.COM
REVISIONS.
E-H w
� xo
� w
J�Mw
w
P
U `V
H
W�a
Q
CA]
w
z Q
z
0 < Z
G
F--
U)
•
LEGEND
{/ DETAIL /SHEET
DETAIL
SYMBOL
DETAIL
DESCRIPTION
�.- - - -L
•1071, ` REFERENCE
�I
10$
PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE
93%L �i - -"
7 .;
/ ,
603.0;
;
Ex(STING CURB LINE
EY
I�1,
'
Sk-f 1511 ' � ; '
EN C
� 1 602.4 �
'
00 linear foot, 30 -inch RCP ------------
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
T-=---- - - - - -- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
'(buried 5 11 below the stream bed)
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
585.
722
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
-
�"
--
720
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED R.C.P.
W w
W Proposed stream relocation (140 If):
PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
695
- 15 If impact (net loss)
590
permanent
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
505
- 125 If temporary impact (stream
PD
580
relocation)
PROPOSED F ARED END SECTION
T Cni;E.
IJINGI
Dpk
DRE
60 oy! N
PROPOSED RIP -RAP APRON
Perennial Stream B
ED
CD
m
:W
GRAPHIC :GALE
SUMMIT
LAND SERVICES, P.0
1111E :4 ea851
- AN IES.COM
REVISIONS.
E-H w
� xo
� w
J�Mw
w
P
U `V
H
W�a
Q
CA]
w
z Q
z
0 < Z
G
F--
U)
•

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Mr. Johnathan M McCall, representing Carolina Development Services, hereby certify
that I have authorized Gregg Antemann of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this
request for wetlands determination / permitting and any and all standard and special
conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
,11 " j zn- C-. 7�
Applicant's signature Agent's signature
`7 7/1/15
Date Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

0F W o� A LIE;9
> y
o -c -
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PC Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 29 or General Permit (GP) number
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification-
El Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program
❑ Yes
® No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below
❑ Yes
,
® No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Creek's Landing
2b
County
Union
2c
Nearest municipality / town:
Monroe
2d
Subdivision name
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.l P. or state
project no
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed-
multiple
3b
Deed Book and Page No.
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable),
N/A
3d
Street address
3e
City, state, zip-
3f
Telephone no
3g
Fax no.:
3h
Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner) '
4a
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify Carolina Development Services
4b
Name
Mr. Jonathan McCall
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Carolina Development Services
4d
Street address
6707 Fairview Road, Suite B
4e
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28210
4f.
Telephone no.-
704 - 401 -7185
4g
Fax no .
4h. Email address*
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Gregg Antemann, PWS
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
5c
Street address
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
5d. City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no
704 - 408 -1683
5f
Fax no
704 -527 -1133
5g
Email address
gregg @cws- inc.net
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID):
060 - 030 -23, 060 - 060 -12, and 060 - 030 -15
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35 001359 Longitude -
80.655074
(DD DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
135 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
proposed project
East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water.
C
2c.
River basin-
Catawba (HUC 03040103)
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application.
The project area consists mostly of forested land and open fields (Figure 2, attached). Typical on -site vegetation includes
willow oak (Quecus phellos), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), winged elm (Ulmus
alata), red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), greenbner (Smilax rotundifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and
muscadine (Vitas roduntifolia)
According to the Sod Survey of Union County (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on -site soils consist of Badin channery silt
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (BaC), Badin channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (BdB2), Badin channery silty
clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (BdC2), Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (ChA), Cid
channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes (CmB), and Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (TbB2)
Chewacla silt loam (ChA) is somewhat poorly drained and Cid channery silt loam (CmB) is moderately well drained.
Badin channery silt loam and silty clay loams (BaC, BdB2, and BdC2, respectively) and Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam
(TbB2) are well drained. Chewacla silt loam (ChA) is listed as hydnc in the National Hydnc Sods List and as having
hydnc inclusions in the North Carolina Hydnc Sods List for Union County
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
0 151 ac
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property -
1,405 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 2,662 linear feet of seasonal stream channel
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 135 acres of property into a single -family subdivision located in Union
County, North Carolina (Figure 6, attached) Union County is experiencing rapid population growth due its proximity to
Charlotte, NC, Fort Mill and Rock Hill, SC and there is a need for residential housing in order to meet the current demand
This project is not a phased project and adjoining subdivisions are all owned by individuals and /or companies not associated
with the Creek's Landing project
Road crossings are unavoidable in order to develop the site while meeting local planning ordinances requiring appropriate
emergency vehicle access to all parts of the subdivision (Figure 6, attached).
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
(Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No 29, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this
project are limited to a total of 124 linear feet (ID of jurisdictional stream channel (Stream B) Permanent impacts to
Stream B are the result of the construction of a road crossing and stream relocation. Additionally, the project proposes
125 If of temporary impacts to jurisdictional stream channel due the proposed stream relocation Proposed impacts are
summarized in Table 2 (next page).
Road Crossing
The proposed road crossing is located in the southwestern portion of the property (Figure 6, attached) The installation of
a culvert for this road crossing will result in 109 If of permanent impacts to Perennial Stream B The proposed road
crossing will utilize a 100 - linear foot, 30 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with headwalls at both the inlet and outlet of
the culvert The proposed culvert will be buried at least six inches below the bed of the channel to allow passage of
aquatic life and maintain low flows A plan view is attached as Figure 8.
Stream relocation
To avoid greater impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S , the project proposes to relocate 125 linear feet of Perennial
Stream B immediately downstream of the proposed culvert (Figures 8 and 9, attached) However, an extreme bend in
Stream B makes it difficult to relocate the stream linear foot for linear foot and thus creates a loss of 15 If during the
relocation of the existing stream to the relocated stream
Relocated Stream B will be constructed to maintain low flows and will have similar channel dimensions as the original
channel. In- stream structures will provide stabilization and prevent upstream incision, as necessary.
Natural coconut matting, riparian seed, and native plants will be installed on both sides of the relocated Stream B for bank
stabilization and erosion control Vegetation species will be chosen to fit in with the existing plant community, as well as
add diversity, particularly in the riparian zone. Currently, much of the riparian area is dominated by invasive Chinese
privet. Chinese privet and other invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle will be removed and /or treated
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
El Yes ®No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the pasty
Comments
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company.
Name (if known)
Other
4d
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
5.
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans '
6a'
Is this a phased project? —70
Yes No
6b.
If yes, explain
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version'

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a.
2b
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e.
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Culvert
Stream B
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4 -5
109
S2 ®P ❑ T
Relocation (net
Stream B
® PER
® Corps
4 -5
15
loss of water)
❑ INT
[:1 DWQ
S3 ❑ P ® T
Relocation
Stream B
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4 -5
125
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
249
3i. Comments Permanent impacts to junsdictionial streams total 124 linear feet.
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a
4b.
4c
4d
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below
5a
5b.
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51. 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 mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d _
6e
6f.
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact
required?
B1 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
61 Comments: ,
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

a
i
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Construction activities and
impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U S will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality
Certification No. 3890 All work will be constructed in the dry No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed.
The proposed road crossing is necessary in order to complete the subdivision and provide sufficient ingress and egress for
emergency vehicles throughout the development. Stream B divides the southern portion of the property in half Therefore,
alternative options for road access while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional streams are limited Proper sediment and erosion
control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
In an attempt to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a "No Build" alternative was
considered. The property was purchased for the purpose of providing residential housing to meet the growth and demand of
an area in Monroe experiencing significant population growth A "No Build" option would not meet the project goals of
providing necessary housing to meet the current demand Therefore, the No Budd Alternative was eliminated from further
consideration
Minimization
The original plan for the proposed road crossing was a piped conveyance instead of the currently proposed culvert (Figure 7,
attached) This original plan included a 153 If, 30 -inch, "L "- shaped reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with a 15 If rip rap apron at
the outlet A straight culvert is the favored design as it will maintain aquatic life passage, is easier to maintain, and has a
lower potential to clog,versus a piped conveyance.
Permanent impacts associated with this design totaled 167 linear feet of perennial stream channel To avoid greater impacts
to jurisdictional waters of the U S , a straight culvert with stream relocation was chosen in lieu of a piped conveyance (Figures
8 and 9, attached) The stream relocation plan is discussed on the next page (page 8).
Impacts associated with the straight culvert design were reduced through the use of headwalls at the inlet and outlet of the
proposed culvert in order to minimize the length required for the proposed crossing The proposed culvert was also designed
to maintain bankfull channel dimensions upstream and downstream of the proposed culvert.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts wherever possible The currently proposed site plan was
developed as a result of this alternatives analysis and avoidance and minimization process We believe that the current site
plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S to the
greatest extent practicable
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
mpacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters Construction activities and
impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U S will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality
Certification No. 3890 All work will be constructed in the dry No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
projects
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested.
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only).
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested
0 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
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 9of13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified `
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
lb
•
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑Yes ❑ No
Comments
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
>24 %
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan.
Stormwater Management Plan will be submitted to NCDWR for review.
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
® DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply).
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
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
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met ?.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
' 1
F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑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,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s).
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description
The project will not result in additional future development.
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
Sewer will tie into existing infrastructure
Page I 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
I I
5b
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
El Raleigh ,
5c
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on July 1, 2015 to
determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within
the project area Based on this review, there are no records of federally- protected species within the project limits. A
copy of the data review report is attached
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries http / /sharpfin.nmfs.noaa gov /website /EFH_Mapper /map aspx
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 2, 2015 to determine the presence of any
areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project In a response letter,
dated July 19, 2015, SHPO states that they are "aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project"
The SHPO response letter is attached CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service and National Register of
Historic Places for Union County and found no sites of architectural, historical, or archaeological significance within the
project limits.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a
Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ® No
8b
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No. 3710540600J and 3710540500J
e'' ""
Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
11 -3 -15
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 11132015
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Carolina Development Services; POC Jonathan McCall
6707 Fairview Road, Suite B, Charlotte, NC 28210
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington District
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Located south from the Intersection of Weddinton Road and Airport Road in Monroe, North Carolina
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC
County /parish /borough: Union
City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (fat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.001359 °N; Long, 80.655074
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
oW
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters:
4,067 linear feet: 2-5 width (ft) and /or 0.321 acres.
Cowardin Class: R51LI82, R4UB2
Stream Flow: 1,4051f perennial, 2,662 If seasonal
Wetlands: 0.151 acres.
Cowardin Class: PF01
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non - Tidal:

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): February 16 and 20, 2015
THAT
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
0 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:
0 Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
appli ant/consultant.
u Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:,
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑✓ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:,N -.LUW/ NC. 19MWLMV. ^913W
❑✓ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: union county Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
0 Photographs: 0 Aerial (Name & Date): Esri, accessed 2015 or
W1 Other (Name & Date): site photographs of streams (February, 2015).
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
2

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

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4
C,
11/3/15
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Site
Number
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardian
Class
Estimated
Amount of
Aquatic
Resource in
Review Area
Class of Aquatic
Resource
Stream A
N35.001359
W80 655074
R5UB2
1,097 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream A
N35.001359
W80 655074
R4UB2
362 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream B
N35 001359
W80.655074
R5UB2
308 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream B
N35.001359
W80.655074
R41.182
703 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream C
N35.001359
W80.655074
R41.182
159 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream D
N35.001359
W80.655074
R41.182
277 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream E
N35.001359
W80 655074
R4UB2
319 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream F
N35 001359
W80.655074
R41.182
63 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream G
N35.001359
W80.655074
R4UB2
676 If
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream H
N35.001359
W80.655074
R4UB2
133 If
non - section 10 - non -tidal
Wetland AA
N35.001359
W80.655074
PFO1
0.043 acre
non - section 10 -- wetland
Wetland BB
N35.001359
W80.655074
PFO1
0.100 acre
non - section 10 -- wetland
Wetland CC
N35.001359
W80.655074
PFO1
0.004 acre
non - section 10 -- wetland
Wetland DD
N35.001359
WBO 655074
PFOi
0.004 acre
non - section 10 -- wetland

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2 L2-.O )S
Project/Site:Cwe-k 1f
Latitude: 3.5. 60 Szx
Evaluator: 4111L �G3J
County: U^ i
Longitude: -F6 6163
Total Points: �. !
Stream is at least Intermittent 3
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent erenn
Other ! r
e.g. quad Name: G
d z 19 or erennlal if 2 30'
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
CZ
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
/;fJ
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
0.5
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
0.5
9. Grade control
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
10. Natural valley
0 1
0.5
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = A. '� )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 1
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal= 6 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
19
0.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 6 Z Q ! S
Project/Site:
Latitude: 3.S , G d T6
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude: -
Total Points:
Stream is at least Intermittent 2 S
Stream Determi ation circle one)
Ephemeral 4 ter ittent
Other • .1i
Name: G�
if 2 19 or erennlal if>_ 30"
erennlal
e.g. quad
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 1 -1 S)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
40
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
®
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
to
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
T
2
0.5
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
aniticial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal= (0 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
CC5 >
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
U. L310100V (Subtotal = h 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
r
l

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2-/a7/ /s
Project/Site: C auk)5jr
Latitude:
Evaluator: /IYli a`CL�3S
County: VI V,3,-,
Longitude: - To. 4S�Z
Total Points: ?
Stream is at least lntemtittent J
Stream Determination (cir
Ephemeral Intermittent erennt
Other SG 2
e.g. quad Name: p J
if Z 19 or perennial if Z 30•
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = .S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
Q
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1 1
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
69
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
0.5
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
(D
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =4D
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 9-S )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
n
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
1
L. 131010gv (Subtotal = h 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
40
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
69
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
U
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2.. Z U j IS
ProjectlSite:6ti elc A )S 2,.,fN
Latitude: 3 rf; 9 9 9$ 6$
Evaluator: A!/#- it f�L�s
County: U^,�n
Longitude: -0.4 Wl
Total Points:
Stream Is at least intermittent
Stream Determination circle one)
Other SC H
,Z,
if ? 19 or erennial if z 30
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e.g. quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= `
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
6 le- ool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
421
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
25. Algae
2
3
9. Grade control
®
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
ID 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No AD
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see dis?ussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
©
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
1
L. 131010av (Subtotal = L. 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants In streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
®
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
®
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identifiication Form Version 4.11
Date: Z Z p tl S
Project/Site: CytiA Jj j, A
Latitude. 3S (jo v 3
Evaluator: /�- `�,ly L�� s
County: VA ibe,
Longitude: -. a 662
Total Points: 2
Stream Is at least intermittent
'
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral rm�ttten Perennial
Other ,�Cr S
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or erennlal if z 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = f S 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1e Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
(D
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
Yes
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
©
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
ip
3
9. Grade control
1
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No AD
Yes = 3
ai untaai uncnes are not rates; see oi s in manual
B. Hvdroloov ( Subtnta s ussi l = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
Q
1
2
0.5
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1
1.5
16
-16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
L.. mmit iv i.,,ilnrnT6ti = 4- 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1.
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
19
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
®
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
1.
1.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 'Z 0 ! S
Project/Site: L Kek 'f 10 ,
Latitude: 3 �; 9 9 g �,
Evaluator: I, &ZA S
County: Uj)a�,,
Longitude: - gp 6 5963
Total Points;
Stream is at least Intermittent 2.1
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral fi{e t Perennial
p
Other ,SL
e.g, quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial If ? 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
F__1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
0
2
3
3. In- channel structure. ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
00
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
10
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
Q
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
qd
2
3
9. Grade control
1
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
15
11. Second or greater order channel
No 4Z
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discyysslons in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = (o
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
00
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biologv (Subtotal= G 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
1
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 1
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2, Z l S
Project/Site: C�I d �,,�J a
Latitude: 3.5, 60 i'�Y_9
Evaluator: 19 V14 &t r3
County: U,
Longitude:. V GSS`
Total Points:
Steam is at least Intermittent Z
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral erm a Perennial
Other Sip
e.g Quad Name.
If Z 19 or perennial ff z 30*
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1.5
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = �7R )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
0
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1.5
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
No = 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(p
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
1.5
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
15
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolopv (Subtotal = 0 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
W
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
ec)
1.5
-16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
3
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
G. f31010gv (Subtotal= 60 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: (o Z 6 / S
ProjectlSite: � reck )f 41.1 `(
Latitude: 3 S. 00 *42-97
Evaluator: '! V f a �/� S
County: V l to^
Longitude:, VO. 4 J n 3
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ?, S
Stream Determ' circle one)
Ephemeral termltten Perennial
Other �6
e.g. quad Name:
if Z 19 or emrinial ft >_ 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Q
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =-i-.3
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
eD
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Q
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
CUD
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
1.5
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
40
1.5
10 Natural valley
0
5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No=w
Yes = 3
anmciai ancnes are not rates; see alscusslons in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = % 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
CUD
1 1.5
Yes
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
lr. t510101111 (Subtotal = (s 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
A9
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Z 1 6 1s
ProJect/Site:6w1k�d�
Latitude: 3 5 OQ!%�dQ
Evaluator: 4Vy,� CL �S
County: (%aF,,.,
Longitude:- S1166
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent •
6
Stream Deter rr t[s�(clrcle one)
Other
9
if a 19 or perennial if a 30'
Ephemeral miter }mltte� Perennial
:
eg. quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 5, S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
V
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
Q
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
©
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
_
3
9. Grade control
0
1.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
�0
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = �4-
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
n
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
n
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes - 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal= A 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1 5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
®
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Z /61/J J
ProjectiSlte: ( 1141L iS ���
Latitude: IS K 00/j.? 9S
Evaluator: AM d i Lr3S
County: V ^(o^
Longitude: -W.6 S674
Total Points:
Stream Is at least intermittent 9
Stream Deter circle one) I
Other SG 1 b
if 2 19 or perennial If Z 30"
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e.g. quad Name:
A. Geonnor holo (Subtotal =-&-i
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1B' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool se uence
0
1D
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes t3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1.5
1
2
3
9. Grade control
1
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see dispussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= b 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes t3
U. 131010aV (Subtotal = J 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
Q
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
LA
0.5
1
1.5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Grr'�'k'�s w`�M'�i City /County: Ui►r� Sampling Date: L
Applicant/Owner: 644x-- ��AW^
l),Nk -✓ + SftN•C *g State: )V(- Sampling Point:
/ 1 6115.5
Investigator(s): V 1+ `` Section, Township, Range: � Y7C
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ? Local relief (concave, convex, none): *1 Slope el* i" S
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): /� 36 Lat• 3 5 • tjV 3 6 �- Long: —�V• �' S 31 Datum:
Sod Map Unit Name: 4C i A C f 1� iO`^" — s �° J II)Vt s NWI classification N�
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _L No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes --K— No
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �— No
Remarks-
rhL oli;,+c, io6,..i'
w04r.,4 •a►Tee►
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
iCSurface Water (All)
_ True Aquatic Plants (814)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
. Saturation (A3)
C Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (131)
LiC Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Recent Iron Reduction to 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 (131)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Z • •
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes k
No Depth (inches): t7 • r
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ')C No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available:
Remarks:
In L oy S
�o Y h•� �a•��
apt puStn4 •
US Army Corps of Engineers
1
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

0
r
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP 1- woi d
3 iy
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
{t
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ` U )
1. Ct (� S ohel�ps
% Cover Species? Status
F�•
Number of Dominant Species
�_
8.
J V �
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. 0LX%'►`3 (00 S la,.; ! aA
is �L1✓
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
Q4GrccS 'kA
3. �/a
IS � V
�
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All S
Strata: 6 (B)
4. L�y�; �L.,a� a1r SdtK r4C� �tia
`O Fft
Total Cover
20% of total cover: 2
5
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Percent of Dominant Species
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
7 r, cvamna c n,ucn rrun�ncca.
-a =Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by-
50%
of total cover: � 20% of total cover:_ OBL species x 1 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: S 1 FACW species x 2 =
1 . rai' ^i0.,q 10 1 Fi'9C. FAC species x3=
2• FACU species x 4 =
3• UPL species x 5 =
4• Column Totals: (A) (B)
5. '
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
"
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7
B.
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Sapling /Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9•
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
�=
_ 3 - Prevalence Index Is s3.0'
11.
5 Total
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
less ft
of total cover:
Total Cover
20% of total cover: 2
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
_�
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 •._ ,�iti i �4X
Yoi,.,A o 114
40 y phi
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2. Con%
to
3
—L_
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height.
8.
9
Sapling /Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10.
m) tall.
11.
5 Total
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
less ft
= Cover
of size, and woody plants than 3.28 tall.
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
5 Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes 13C No _
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
3 Ac doi► -t ;,U, ,+ Vt�L}�'��a. G� l�i9t od
US'Army Corps-of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

SOIL. Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % _ Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
0-1 �� y,� 2 100
or 40. ;t
1-73 /U yet S12- too
c
-3--+ /G 1 75
ZU i� Y�c 160
7.SX s PL
�1 ��-►
Cl�1�,..
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De Ietion, RM= Reduced Matnx, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
I/ 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 (A71)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (FB)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
bn
U5 Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Crezlk /S G1^d City/County: u�1 °^ Sampling Date: Z �`
Applicant/Owner: �r °�h'�- ° I�r,� -.� fazv, ets State: N� Sampling Point:_�AnCA
Investigator(s): �µ L-LI3S Section, Township, Range: i''r vot
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): h111%006'14, Local relief (concave, convex, none): VINO Slope ( %): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): �*+ f 3 L Lat: . u U 3 A- Long: ���. b S 1 S/8 Datum:: v4o
Soil Map Unit Name: � NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes A No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ' ` Is the Sampled Area Y
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x within a Wetland? Yes No �\
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No iC
Remarks:
fli'�' f S YC�a�SL,��I�C �o>< al r1oi1 — )� 1 ►��rC.��o1c
ptC.,� aYt-q .
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required• check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (814)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (82) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63) — Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ly Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No � Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No k Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No�_
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available:
Remarks:
i
US Army,Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: P?
6.
' Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3o { r ) Cover SD�ecries? status
1.� 4 Vii 0% S °� C.- ),G, 20 7 V
,
2. QMsa Cis a16c, 5,
3. &"Ib LN yl%K+��,i S �/ G
44
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: J y (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
y = Total Cover
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
50% of tot cover: Z U
20% of total cover-
OBL species
x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1�
FACW species
x 2 =
1. L•�p*^�3 �� °i ^�.g
�0 `� f 44
FAC species
x 3 =
2•
FACU species
x 4 =
3.
UPL species
x 5 =
4.
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
7
RZ - Total Cover 2
50% of total cover: s 20% of total cover:
Herb Stra u (Plot size:
1. S^l -k k 7odt✓►cIt �O1� g _L—
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is!' 3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7• height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9• than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10. m) tall
11. Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover $ of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover: L 20% of total cover:
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height.
1.
Hydrophytic
5 Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
01 V(,+N ,
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color moist %
IX
Color (moist) % Type Loci
Texture Remarks
6-91 A) OW2 as
G
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De ledon, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matnx.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7) -
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy,Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
f
}
j-rA 7L
r
US Army Corps of Engineers
,Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

F
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M Bartos, Admtmstrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Ktuttz
July 16, 2015
Ahisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop Creeks Landing Residential Subdivision, Weddington Road & Airport Road, Monroe,
CWS 2015 -3535, Union County, ER 15 -1533
Dear Ms. Harjuniemi:
Thank you for your letter of July 2, 2015, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or
environmental.reviewQncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6JO(Ramona M. Bartos
Location 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax [phone] -6599

-A��
AiAp
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat Mc Cory BW GossV Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Director Secretary
NCNHDE -436
July 1, 2015
Alusa Haruniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
alusa @cws- inc.net
RE Creek's Landing, 2015 -3535
Dear AInsa Harjuniemi.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation /managed areas within the proposed project boundary submitted
with your request for information. These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences'
table and map
Also attached is a table summarizing rare species and natural communities that have been documented
within a one -mile radius of the project boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that these natural
heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is included for
reference In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that
we may update our records. Tables of natural areas and conservation /managed area within a one -mile
radius, if any, are also included in this report
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications
Maps of NC Natural Heritage Program data may not be redistributed without permission from the NCNHP.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence
if a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or an occurrence of a Federally -
listed species is documented within or near the project area
Thank you for your inquiry If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need
additional assistance, please contact Allison Schwarz Weakley at allison weakleyO- ncdenr.gov or
919 707 8629
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Creek's Landing
Project No. 2015 -3535
July 1, 2015
NCNHDE -436
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Status
Freshwater Fish 10412 Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter 2013 -05 -28 Current 3- Medium Species of Special G3 S3
Concern Concern
Natural Areas Documented Within Protect Area
Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating
CTB/Twelvemile Creek Aquatic Habitat n/a (Not Applicable) C4 (Moderate)
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at hftos.// ncnhde .natureserve.org /content/helo Data query generated on July 1, 2015, source NCNHP, Q2 Apnl 2015 Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Creek's Landing
Project No 2015 -3535
July 1, 2015
NCNHDE -436
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
Last
Element
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation
Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date
Status
Freshwater 29551
Vlllosa delumbis
Eastern Creekshell
2011 -06 -09
Current
3 -Medium
- --
Significantly
G4
S3
Bivalve
Rare
Freshwater 115
Vlllosa vaughanlana
Carolina Creekshell
2011 -06 -09
Current
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G2
S2
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater Fish 10412
Etheostoma collis
Carolina Darter
2013 -05 -28
Current
3- Medium
Species of
Special
G3
S3
Concern
Concern
Vascular Plant 15141
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's Sumac
1794 -07 -21
Historical
5 -Very
Endangered
Endangered
G2G3
S2
Low
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name
Representational Rating
Collective Rating
CTB/Twelvemile Creek Aquatic Habitat
n/a (Not Applicable)
C4 (Moderate)
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https_// ncnhde .natureserve.org /contentihelo Data query generated on July 1, 2015, source NCNHP, Q2 Apnl 2015 Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE -436: Creek's Landing
July 1, 2015
MProject Boundary
LO Buffered Project Boundary
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Page 4 of 4
1:25,745
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.35 0.7 t4 km
Sources: Esr, HEE O.— om --I. P Le
OCO O FA . S .
NRCAN. OeoBeve. ION, —I. N�,

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WQC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3535
Photograph A. View of Perennial RPW A, facing upstream.
Photograph B. View of Perennial RPW B, facing upstream.

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Photograph C. View of Seasonal RPW A, facing upstream.
Photograph D. View of Seasonal RPW B, facing upstream.

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3535
Photograph E. View of Seasonal RPW C, facing upstream.
Photograph F. View of Seasonal RPW D, facing upstream.
R

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3535
Photograph G. View of Seasonal RPW E, facing upstream.
Photograph H. View of Seasonal RPW F, facing upstream.

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3535
Photograph I. View of Seasonal RPW G, facing upstream.
Photograph I2. View of Seasonal RPW G, facing downstream.

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WQC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Photograph J. View of Wetland AA, facing west.
Photograph K. View of Wetland BB, facing west.
vi

Creek's Landing November 3, 2015
Pre - Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Project No. 2015 -3535
Photograph L. View of Wetland CC, facing north.
Photograph A View of Wetland DD, facing north.
vn