20130230 Ver 2_401 Application_20130613

r,
CWS
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWQ — Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27603
13 - o a3.a u o.
Date: 06 -25 -13
CWS Project #: 2013 -3109
LETTER OF TRANSMITT L P
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
ao).
1 0)11 u �111
CbV1Sl IZI
DD C01 V M� � 4 !S O V
1
6/25/13
5
Application for WQC No. 3885
2
1 6/25/13
1
Application Fee Check ($240)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑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 Preconstruction Notification and application for Water
Quality Certification for the Quail Hollow Hole 7 Project in Charlotte NC A check for the application fee is also attached
Copy to: File
Thank you,
omas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
D@ ---I'-_
JUN ;� 2013
^� -W'4
try

i
CWS]Carolina Wetland Services
June 25, 2013
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866 -527 -1177 (office)
704527 -1133 (fax)
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWQ — Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27603
13- Da2l�oU aV
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Water Quality Certification No. 3885
Quail Hollow Hole # 7 Improvements
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2013 -3109
The Quail Hollow Hole # 7 Improvement Project is located within Quail Hollow Club at 3700
Gleneagles Road, Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map, attached). The
purpose of this project is to repair the existing cracked weir on Perennial Stream A and to stabilize the
eroding left bank of the stream channel downstream of the pond. Quail Hollow Club has contracted
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this
project.
Applicant Name: Quail Hollow Club, POC: Mr. J. W. Harris
Mailing Address: 3700 Gleneagles Road, Charlotte, NC 28210
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: 704 -552 -1800
Street Address of Project: 3700 Gleneagles Rd. Charlotte NC
Tax Parcel ID: Portion of 209 - 561 -01 °
Waterway: UT to McMullen Creek
Basin: Santee (HU# 03050103) �.
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg - .- ••
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.1116821, W80.847099°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Weddington, NC, dated 1998
Current Land Use
The project area is approximately 0.58 acre in extent and is comprised of a portion of the Quail
Hollow Club golf course. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of maintained turf
grass with stands of mature trees including loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), flowering dogwood (Corpus
Florida), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and various non - native ornament a�L9
JUN 2 6 2013
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Quail Hollow Hole #7 Improvements June 25, 2013
' WOC 3885 Project No. 2013 -3109
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County' (Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey Map, attached),
on -site soils consist of Monacan loam (MO) and Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slope (WkD). Monacan
loam soils are poorly drained and display moderate permeability. Wilkes loam soils are well drained
and display moderately slow permeability. Monacan loam (MO) soils are listed on the North Carolina
Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County2 and are also listed as partially hydric on the National
Hydric Soils List3 (hydric criteria 2133, 4).
Jurisdictional Determination
On June 4, 2013, CWS scientists Thomas Blackwell, PWS and Gregg Antemann, PWS delineated
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated 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 Manual4, with further technical
guidance from the Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Interim Regional Supplements, dated April 2012.
A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of non jurisdictional upland areas has been
enclosed (DPI).
The results of the on -site field investigation indicate that there is one jurisdictional stream channel
(Stream A) and one open water area (Pond A) located within the project area (Figure 3, attached). Pond
A is an impoundment of offsite, upstream waters of Stream A. Stream A is an unnamed tributary (UT) to
McMullen Creek. McMullen Creek is within the Santee River basin (HU# 03050103)' and is classified
as "Class C" waters by the NCDWQ. On -Site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Summary of On -Site Jurisdictional Waters
' United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -
NRCS North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
3 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010. 2010 National Hydric Soils List by State
4 Environmental Laboratory 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
S US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
6 Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non - Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non- RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year -round flow, and seasonal
streams that have continuous flow at least seasonally. Two classifications of jurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and
connection to TNWs. These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting. Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within
floodplains or in close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water
connection traceable to a TNW.
7 '.HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
0!
Jurisdiction
Stream
NCDWQ Stream
USACE Stream
Approx
Approx
USACE/EPA
Intermittent/
Jurisdictional
Classification
Classification
Assessment
Linear
Acreage
Feature
Rapanos
Perennial
Point (SCP)
Score
Score
Feet (If)
(ac.)
Classification6
Stream A
Perennial RPW
Perennial
SCP1
33
32
265.01
0.036
Stream Total
265.01 If
0.036 ac
Jurisdictional
USACE/EPA Rapanos
Approx.
Approx.
Feature
Classification
Data Point (DP)
Linear
Acreage
Feet
ac.
Pond A
Impoundment of offsite,
N/A
N/A
0.025
upstream waters of Stream A
Open Waters Total
0.025 ac
Jurisdictional Waters Total
0.061 ac
' United States Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA -
NRCS North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
3 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010. 2010 National Hydric Soils List by State
4 Environmental Laboratory 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
S US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
6 Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non - Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non- RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year -round flow, and seasonal
streams that have continuous flow at least seasonally. Two classifications of jurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and
connection to TNWs. These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting. Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within
floodplains or in close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water
connection traceable to a TNW.
7 '.HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
0!

Quail Hollow Hole #7 Improvements June 25, 2013
' WOC 3885 Project No. 2013 -3109
Perennial RPW s
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) are those that typically have year -round flow. These
streams typically have greater biological resources than Seasonal RPWs and Non -RPWs and are capable of
supporting those resources that require perennial flow. This section describes each on -site Perennial RPW
stream and the field observations supporting these determinations.
Stream A beings on -site and flows south across the middle portion of the project area for approximately 265
linear feet to its off -site confluence with McMullen Creek (Figure 3, attached). Stream A is a ITT to
McMullen Creek. Stream A exhibited strong bed and banks, strong flow, weak sinuosity, and a moderate
presence of fish. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present year round in a typical year.
Stream A was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with perennial flow (RPW) according to
USACF/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 32 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE
Stream Quality Worksheet and 33 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form,
indication perennial status (SCPI, attached). Photographs A and B (attached) are representative of
Perennial RPW Stream A.
Open Waters
Pond A is an impoundment of offsite, upstream waters of Stream A. On -site waters of Pond A are
approximately 0.025 acre in extent. Pond A was determined to be jurisdictional based on its surface
water connection to the offsite, upstream and downstream waters, of Stream A, a UT to McMullen
Creek. Photograph C is representative of Pond A (Figure 3, attached).
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on February 27, 2013 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. As of the date of this submittal, a response from SHPO has not yet
been received. CWS consulted the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission database
and found no listed properties within the project area.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on February 27,
2013 to determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or
critical habitat located within the project area. In a response letter, dated March 7, 2013, the NCNHP
state that, "The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural
communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the project site nor
within a mile of the project area."
In addition, the NCNHP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database Virtual Workroom and
Element Occurrence (EO) database was reviewed for a listing of EOs of endangered or threatened
species within or near the project area. The EO database identified no endangered or threatened
species within a two -mile radius of the project area.
3

Quail Hollow Hole #7 Improvements June 25, 2013
WOC 3885 Project No. 2013 -3109
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to repair the cracked weir adjacent to Hole 7 of the Quail Hollow Club
golf course and to stabilize the stream banks downstream of the weir. The existing weir has a crack
and is in need of repair. In addition, the incised channel downstream of the weir is eroding on the left
bank and is endangering the green of the 7`h hole of the golf course. Our client proposes to repair the
existing weir and improve the downstream channel through the installation of a boulder toe along the
left bank. The bank will be also be regraded, stabilized with SC250 channel liner (permanent turf
reinforcement) and planted with grass and ornamental shrubs.
The proposed stabilization will result in increased channel stability and will protect the golf course
from further erosion.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. All work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3885
In order to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters, an alternatives analysis was
conducted during the initial planning stages of this project. The initial project design proposed piping
approximately 150 linear feet of Perennial Stream A from the existing weir downstream.. This would
have resulted in the permanent loss of that section of stream channel. In an effort to reduce impacts to
jurisdictional waters the current design was developed. This proposed design will result in no permanent
loss of stream channel and stabilize approximately 105 linear feet of stream bank (Figures 4 and 5,
attached).
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. total 105 linear feet of stream bank (Table 2,
below). These impacts are the result of the installation of a boulder toe and regarding the stream bank.
Table 2. Summary of Impacts to On -Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional
Intermittent /
NWP
Temporary / Permanent
Approx.
Feature
Perennial/Open
Impact Type
No.
Linear Feet (ac)
Acreage
Water
Stream A
Perennial RPW
Stabilization
13
105 linear feet
N/A
(Temporary)
Stream Impacts (Total);
105
N/A
On behalf of Quail Hollow Club, 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. 13 and WQC 3885 (attached).
4

Quail Hollow Hole 117 Improvements June 25, 2013
` WOC 3885 Project No. 2013 -3109
Compensatory Mitigation
Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to 105 linear feet of stream bank
stabilization. Stream A is currently lined with rip rap, water quality is low, and the stream is in a
degraded condition. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for these impacts.
Please do not hesitate to contact Gregg at 704 - 527- 1177or gregg @cws- inc.net should you have any
questions or comments regarding these findings.
ZT__� c
G
OW
regory C. Antemann, PWS homas Blackwell, PWS
Principal Scientist Senior Scientist
Enclosures: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2. USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 3. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 4. Proposed Impacts (overview)
Figure 5. Proposed Bank Stabilization Details
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Agent Authorization Form
Pre - Construction Notification
USACE Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form (SCPI)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
cc: File

i
}
_i
l r
k r>I dc'`/ I n e
(see Note #1)
1 • � I % \7
/ concrete weir
top of wall 560.3'
��.•vo /i ,� top of weir 559.4'
1 •. 9 \ r
15 orifice in wall
99,^, REPAIR CRACK IN EXISTING WEIR
Ricardo L. E I I a s CAL V / / ADD STONE TO EXISTING WEIR
I 12' WIDE PLUNGE POOL �—
Brenda L. Alas 564 `\` 564 _ r vp\ EXISTING STONE BANK TO REMAIN
D.B. 26800 Pg. 620
Lot 1 1, M.B. 20 Pg. 379 1_1 " cedars ro
Tax I.D.# 20937102 : Sg ' -� ', �` �,;° Dse?
� LPL t' i v
■ /f!'�yy -\ 1�_ `�� /"� (r) PROPOSED FLOWERING SHRUB:
KNOCK -OUT ROSE % US
■
t
I
t
t
t
■ — — `i _ _ I PROPOSED EVERGREEN SHR — — —
�l \ WINTER JASMINE .
■ _ - -�"�(' — t \ 2 �� L I .+�' PROPOSED GRASS WITH SC 250
I III iii` \ CHANNELLINER ...���
i -- ; (VJ Inv. 5" /crerr ,°c 1 Flood.
x parcel h 3 `D , 4 ' 11 . ii
a :i r� ro i./ /�. U S S ? �\ i �i l.7) I I EXISTING CREEK BED TO REMAIN
/ 11(
•• covered o er % j / I I' I �e) % �OUL R EDGE WITH 140 MIRFI 0
••• II,,��� I 1 I Q \ I i +i/ \ I I I ,NON- EN FILTER FABRIC •
••
by [ REPLACEMENT TREES, TV P.
rV l
r. I
,•�••• • � � I I 1) 'tr 11 I � � i
) • v ) E � I I S� •
30" poplar ■\ i {' \ ':' S5 >���
C) � f�
24" poplar �`
■ a ' - i r — ` \ \ \\ \ 6 _568 - --
30" poplar, I - --
United Properties Group, LLC �\ \ I ",.;�
D.B. 10884 Pg. 343 `I o ' I �\ \ \ \` \\ S6g '`5E,:,
Lot 12, M.B. 20 Pg. 379 I; �\ \ ��r °s c X
Tax I.D.# 20937103 I: - I I II ::. ,�,'1 ,+ 2 sweetgum \ • •
♦ '.sewer
560 6
small storm drain \ •
lines from this lot I� /�7 !`�`\ 1PF `\ 1 5" pirt� O \ gfJ�r
are not shown I; as Icy` \ • \. \. \ • k
h 961- \ �" , \ \� 4 \..� \ \ _ `••• �c`:,
WM
SURVEY M A =A AT PI W r (A) SURIEYR
fERRUARY B. 2011, ? SURVEY, DAIS.
22C A DEg ASBDOATES, INC. FIELD WRVEY, DATE
x PROJECT 1­81.
Ac. ZOUTENE3CE, — RVY DATE. AUGUST x =I.
PROJECT 1 3100 GIENE — ROAD.•
A.G. 2WIETELLE. UMW SURVEY, DATE. MARON 6. 2012
5. A.G. ZWTE'AEU" N0. 7 RENSED SURVEY, DATE MAY 2a,
2013.
rio�e�enest
86 Stone
Shop" the F 'moment
neotizirry rneAas;NrDe3
Gn4 Planning
Civil En9ineannq
UHNn Design
x6o wPU r,ww sD.et, win 14m
LTarlotle, Norm Gmlina 2872
W 104 3161555 h 71316 7651
LINCOLN HARRIS
4725 Piedmont Row Drive, Suite 800
Charlotte
North Carolina 28210
QUAIL HOLLOW
#7 HOLE
IMPROVEMENTS
3700 Gleneagles Road
Charlotte
North Carolina 28210
FIGURE 5.
Proposed Bank
Stabilization
3
Issued
06/14/2013
Revised
o
SCALE: 1 " =I(Y
N
D 5®
9`I
�o
0pp1Wm1
au+ucTwsAM.QI,�
1 —mow
TR 4 - me Pnxa manamana& S
m n :Lnrme st asnln
PmowP
PA_T6e
1. CONTRACTOR IS NLLY '_CN91BLE FOR CONTALTNG APPROPRIATE PARTES
AND ASSUMNG THAT EX STNC UTUTES ARE IACAIm PRpR 09
consmucnal
npn4ucuon Pr unaugonze6 un of [0e 4o<um<nU w tROUt
dP,e nP,,d..
coon pmn Nn
nt 4l Ce elenat RSnne. PA Is 6
L CON! ACTOR RE9pI51B E BARRICADES USPIO PUG MFH
G ek 0 B SMe. I.A. ID13
BUG
3. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS CONCRETE OR ASPHALT, ARE m BE RERACm
TO STANOAROS OF TIE NORM DEPARTMENT
ACCORDING CAROLINA OF
TRANSPOR —ON AND CHARLOTTE- 4ECKLfHB11RG UnU — 111CAnONS.
4. w ING VAp BOR E ACCO INNGTO —A TRENCHING STANDARDS PART 1926

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, W • t-t A Cf- .S , representing Quail Hollow Club, hereby certify
that I have authorized Gregg Antemamn and 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.
pplicant signature
3%5/13
Date
M M. ���
Agent's signature
03/04/13
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: June 24, 2013
COUNTY Mecklenburg CgIM, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 0.58 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) 3700 Gleneagles Road, Charlotte, NC
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Ouail Hollow Club
POC: Mr. J.W. Harris
3700 Gleneagles Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.,
POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS at (704) 527 -1177
550 East Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On -going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Stream Enhancement )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X ) Figure 1. USGS 7.5- Minute Weddington, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X ) Figure 2. USDA -NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
(X ) Figure 3. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
(X) Pre- Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCPI)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCPI)
(X) USACE Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
(X) Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregory C. Antemann, PWS

`O�ot WALe9OG
H
> 1
O `C
Office Use Only-
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 13 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 13 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
® Yes ❑ No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Quail Hollow #7 Hole Improvement
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Quail Hollow Club
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
02437 -571
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d. Street address:
3700 Gleneagle Road
3e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28210
3f. Telephone no.:
704552 -1800
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page l of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
Mr. J.W. Hams
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Quail Hollow Club
4d. Street address:
3700 Gleneagles Road
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28210
4f. Telephone no.:
704- 552 -1800
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- 527 -1177
5f. Fax no.:
704 -527 -1133
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
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):
portion of 209 - 561 -01
Latitude: 35.111682 Longitude: -
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
80.847033
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
0.58 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
McMullen Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Santee (HU# 03050103)
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 is approximately 0.58 acre in extent and is comprised of a portion of the Quail Hollow Club golf course.
Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of maintained turf grass with stands of mature trees including loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), flowering dogwood (Comus florida), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and various non - native ornamental
species.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
265.01 linear feet of Perennial RPW
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to repair the cracked weir adjacent to Hole 7 of the Quail Hollow Club golf course and to
stabilize the stream banks downstream of the weir. The existing weir has a crack and is in need of repair. In addition, the
incised channel downstream of the weir is eroding on the left bank and is endangering the green of the 7th hole of the
golf course. Our client proposes to repair the existing weir and improve the downstream channel through the installation
of a boulder toe along the left bank. The bank will be also be regraded, stabilized with SC250 channel liner (permanent
turf reinforcement) and planted with grass and ornamental shrubs.
The proposed stabilization will result in increased channel stability and will protect the golf course from further erosion..
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will involve the installation of a boulder toe along the left stream bank for 105 feet downstream of the existing
weir. In addition, the stream bank will be regraded and stabilized with turf reinforcement matting and revegetated with
grass and ornamental shrubs.. A track hoe and other typical construction equipment will be used to construct this project
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ 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.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
I ❑ 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 [IT
❑ 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
Permanent P or
()
intermittent
DWQ —non -404,
idth
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ®T
Bank Stabilization
Stream A
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
5
105
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P [IT
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P [IT
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
[:1 Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
105
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 12
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 ❑ PEI T
4E 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
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require 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?
61 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. 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 possible. Proper sediment and
erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All work will be constructed in the dry
in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3885
In order to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters, an alternatives analysis was conducted during the initial
planning stages of this project. The initial project design proposed piping approximately 150 linear feet of Perennial Stream A
from the existing weir downstream.. This would have resulted in the permanent loss of that section of stream channel. In an
effort to reduce impacts to jurisdictional waters the current design was developed. This proposed design will result in no
permanent loss of stream channel and stabilize approximately 105 linear feet of stream bank (Figures 4 and 5, attached).
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
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. All work will be constructed in the
dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification No. 3885.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool []cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes C3 No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: There is no change in impervious area
associated with this project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
® Certified Local Government
2e. Who will-be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
❑ 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
❑ HOW
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 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 (federaUstate) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ 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.
N/A
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on February 27, 2013 to determine the
presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. In a response letter, dated March 7, 2013, the NCNHP state that, "The Natural Heritage Program has no record of
rare species, significant natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the
project site nor within a mile of the project area."
In addition, the NCNHP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database Virtual Workroom and Element Occurrence
(EO) database was reviewed for a listing of EOs of endangered or threatened species within or near the project area. The
EO database identified no endangered or threatened species within a two-mile radius of the project area.
S. 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.govtwebsite /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 February 22, 2013 to determine the presence
of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. As of the date
of this submittal, a response from SHPO has not yet been received. CWS consulted the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic
Landmarks Commission database and found no listed properties within the project area.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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. 3710454000J
ZT-a- C— Azaz,r
Mr. Gregory Antemann, PWS
06 -25 -2013
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

.,
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Quail Hollow Hole #7 City /County: Mecklenbrug Sampling Date: 6 -4-13
Applicant/Owner: Cole Jenest & Stone State: NC Sampling Point DP1- Upland
Investigator(s): TJB & GCA Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %): 2-8
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA Lat.: 35.111682 Long.: 80.847099 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name Wilkes loam, 8-15% slopes (WkD) NWI Classification:
Are climatic thydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Yes
Are vegetation soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present?
(if needed, explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
hytic vegetation present? No
soil present? No
hydrology present? No
HYDROLOGY
Is the sampled area within a wetland? No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (61)
_ Roots (0)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_
Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
—Crayfish
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Soils (C6)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (85)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (132)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Shallow Aquitard (133)
Imagery (137)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_
, FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Aquatic Fauna (813)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water table present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
present? N
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

VtGt I A 1 IUn - use ScienimC names or
plants
50%
Tree Stratum
Tree Stratum
Plot Size (
30 ft.
) Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
19
48
Woody Vine Stratum
% Cover
Species
Status
1 Pinus taeda
UPL species 0
X5=
10
Y
FAC
2
Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.90
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub
Plot Size (
15 ft.
) Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Stratum
/o Cover
Species
Status
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum
Plot Size (
5 R
) Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
% Cover
Species
Status
1 Cynodon dactylon
95
Y
FACU
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
95
= Total Cover
Woody Vine
Plot Size (
30 ft.
) Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Stratum
% Cover
Species
Status
1
2
3
4
5
0
or on a
= Total Cover
Less than 50% of dominant species are FAC or wetter.
Sampling Point:
60120 Thresholds
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC: 1. (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC: 50.00% (A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
20%
50%
Tree Stratum
2
5
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
0
0
Herb Stratum
19
48
Woody Vine Stratum
0
0
Number of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC: 1. (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC: 50.00% (A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
Total % Cover of:
OBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 0
x 2 =
0
FAC species 10
x3=
30
FACU species 95
x4=
380
UPL species 0
X5=
0
Column totals 105
(A)
410 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.90
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
_ Dominance test is >50%
_ Prevalence index is s3.0`
Morphological adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
—separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation*
_ (explain)
.Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Tree - Woody plants 3 in (7 6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height
Saplinglsrwb - Woody plants less than 3 in DBH and
greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present? N
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

SOIL
Samplina Point: DP1- Upland
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
Color moist %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type* Loc"
Texture
Remarks
0-12
7.5 YR312
100
sandy loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains
"Location: PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
_ Dark Surface (S7)
Histisol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) .
Histic Epipedon (A2) _ (MLRA 147,148) —Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147,148)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 136,147)
Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Matrix (F3) —Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8)
(LRR N, MLRA 147,148) _Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type.
Depth (inches):
Hydric soil present? N
Remarks:
Hydric soils indicators are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

]IC DNVQ Stream idenrificatiott for-ni Vei-sion 4.11
P: r,;eci/Site ©.. �'• - �r���n..� �;i: ;: �� N 3�. {I1 y ° -_�
Evaluator: "T "s X y &C-8
County:
Longitude:W 991841f D"
Total Points:
Stream Determination (ciALe.c apk
Other P
Is of least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent ennf
-1
e.g. Quad Name:
if t 19 or perennial If Z 30'
it
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
/a"1
�J
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
3
5. Active/relict floodplain -
No = 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
1.5
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R 4avr�rnlnnv fCi ihfnt=l = (7 t
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
3
14. Leaf fitter
0. v
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
016
1.5
116. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
3
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
3
r- Rinlnnv fRithtntni = I f] 1
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
Cy
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
w
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
0
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:

f�
OFFICE USE ONLY
USACE AID#
DWQ #,
SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET LAW
1. Applicant's Name: Quail Hollow Club: POC: J.W. Harris 2. Evaluator's Name: T. Blackwell, PWS and G. Antemann, PWS
3. Date of Evaluation: 64-13 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:00 AM
5. Name of Stream: Stream A 6. River Basin: Santee (HU # 03050103)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 300 acres 8. Stream Order: 1 st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 2001f 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): Quail Hollow Country Club, Charlotte, NC
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 35.1116820N 80.847099°W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunnv, 80 °F
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunnv. 70 °F
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.76 acre
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 19>0 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 0
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
5 °/a Forested _% Cleared / Logged 80 % Other ( golf course )
21. Bankfull Width: 6' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 32 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 6 -4-13
This channel evaluation form is in ended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
0
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
no discharge = 0 seeps, wetlands etc. = max points)
�
EA
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0– 4
0– 4
0– 2
1
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
�•
Q"
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0– 5
0– 4
0– 2
0
entrenched = 0• fire went flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA'
0-4
0 - 5
2
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 – 4
0-5
1
�r
incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 – 5
0-5
2
a
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
F,
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max ints
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
=0;
substantial impact • no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 – 4
0-5
4
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed hts
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
d
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0 varied habitats = max ints
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 – 5
0-5
0
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
0
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max oints
0
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous s = max points)
MO
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
F23d
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence =max points)
Total Points Possible —F
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
32
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

• APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 6-24-13
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Asheville Regulatory Office
US Army Crops of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County /parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.111682° K Long. 90.8470990W,-,.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: McMullen Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
® Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 4 June 2013
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or 0.061 acres.
Wetlands:0 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation M_ anual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Y For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months)
Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

• • ❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and detennined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:

SEC`T'ION M: CWA ANALYSIS
•A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HI.A.I and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.l.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent ":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapamos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non- navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IH.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HI.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: ' acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No.
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West
s Flow route can be descnbed by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

• • (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (Check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/%cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Some steep eroding banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime: Seasonal flows with input
from strom events.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is:ick Lis6. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Oick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
• OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
• Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g, where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Forested 100' +/
�� ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Tributaries have abutting wetlands.
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics.
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

• . For each wetland, specify the following:
w Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (,in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (eg. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section I1I.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (fl), Or, acres.
IJ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream A exhibited strong bed and banks, strong flow, weak sinuosity, and a moderate presence of fish.
Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present year round in a typical year. Stream A was classified as a
Relatively Permanent Water with perennial flow (RPW) according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A
scored 32 out of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Worksheet and 33 out of a possible 71 points on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form, indication perennial status (SCPI, attached).

❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 1II.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
`+ seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 265.01 linear feet6width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: 0.025 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: impoundment.
3. Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section II1.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
[❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
BSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

E] which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
® Wetlands: acres.
F. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
. dgment (check all that apply):
Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non- wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
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: 1:24K- Weddington, NC Quad, dated 1998.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Mecklenburg, NC dated 2011.
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)
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
[] Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:

Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: