20071248 Ver 1_Application_20070720

e !y.
` Environmental Design ~ Consulting
July 17, 2007
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Subject:
07-1248
~~u~T~s~
~C~P~
Courtesy Copy, PCN for the Yongs Pond Meridale Subdivision Project
95 acre site Mecklenburg Co., N.C
Dear Mr. Dorney,
I have enclosed a courtesy copy of the Pre-construction No#ification, exhibits and
plans for a NWP 29 with exhibits. Scoping Letters have been sent to and responses
received from SHPO & USFWS.
Please contact me with any questions you may have.
You may send me an a-mail to Christ~EstesDesign.com or contact me at office,
704.841.1779 or cell, 704.400.1483

rtes, RLA, ASLA
Landscape Architect, N.C. & S.C.
Enclosure;
Cc. FILE
t-~ ;`~,~ d.,
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
-~
JtJt. ,~ 0 z p 07
~"7hti~ygV,~T~? ~ ~T ~ ~~~h
• P.O. Box 79133 Charlotte, N.C. 28271-7050 Phone /Fax (704} 841-1779 .

Office Use Only: Form version March o5
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ~ 7- 1 2 4 8
(If any particlilar item is not applicable to this proiect, please enter "Not Anolicable" or "NIA"_)
I. Processing ~' ~ ~ ~TE ~~
C®PY
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 29
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °i `~
1. Owner/Applicant Information ,1~JL 4 C 2007
Name: Mr. Bart Ho er Youn s Pond LLC
Mailing Address: 1518 East 3r Street, Suite 2C WETItVti~=~ ADD 5TO2p~'u"TFR RRawrH
Charlotte North Carolina 28204
Telephone Number: 704-927-2881 Fax Number: 704-370-6099
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Christopher Estes
Company Affiliation: Estes Design Inc.
Mailing Address: P. O. Box ?9133 Charlotte NC 28271
Telephone Number: 704-841-1779 Fax Number: 704-841-1842
E-mail Address: www.estesdesi~n.com
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 9

should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation .and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the .impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proaoced impacts to wetlands
consist of 3787 square feet (0 087 ac) of fill for the relocated Alten Brown Road. The
remainder of the wetland 2678 square feet (0 06 ac) will be preserved as a "tree save"
area See Phase I elan sheet area "A".
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not ttmtteci to
mechanized clearing,. grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc.. For dams,
_.,.,.~., ~:~+ :..~.,.,,.+~ a„o ~., tenth et„irt„rP and finndinn.
JG LN CJ.a

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Ga 11D~ aau uv~o uuv ~.~

Type of Impact .........,~. »..~»_ _ ~-- --- - --
T of Wetland
yPe
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) -
Located withm
100_y~
Floodplain
(es/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
A Fill Forested No 900 0.087

Total Wetland Impact (acres).. 0.087
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 7.0 ac
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.),'excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint.. for both the original and relocated streams
'' '' '--- ~l- rrn
-must be included. 'To calcul ate acres e, multi 1' ten h x wtdtn, tne n aiviae v ~~,~~~.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on
~)
Stream
Name
Type of
Impact
Perennial or
Intexmittent? Average Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear
feet)
Area of
Impact (acres)
B ut culvert Lntermittent 3' 135 0.009

u~a i iw2oos
Page 4 of 9

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage} 135 0.009
Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill_ excavation_ dred~in~_ flooding_ drainaae_ bulkheads, etc.
---, - -
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) - ,
Name of Waterbody
(~ applicable)

Type of Impact
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.)
Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U. S. resulting from the project:
Stream Im act (acres): 0.009
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.087
O en Water Im act (acres : (Tem orary)
Total Impact to Waters of the U. S. (acres 0.096
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ®Yes ^No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Prouosed isolated impacts of 0.023 acres are _caused by fill for surrounding lots.
Courtesy PCN copied to NCDENR)
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Updated l lll/2005
Page 5 of 9

Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Impacts have been avoided to maximum extent feasible. All non-isolated wetland impacts
have been minimized to 0.096 acres. Stream impacts have been minimized through
avoidance and a single bottomless culvert that spans the stream bed and both banks. See
attached detail for the bottomless culvert. Proposed isolated wetland impacts have been
minimized_per review of NCDENR Alan Johnson.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to; reducing the size of the project; establishing -and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams;' and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http: //h2o. enr.state. nc. us/ncwetlands/strmgide. html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 9

Mitigation of wetland impacts has been provided through the preservation of
remaining wetlands through protective covenants that will be incoporated into the final
survey plat. A NWP 27 wilt be submitted at a later date that will also include
enhancement of aver 1200 linear feet of stream & approximately 6 acres of wetlands.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at htt~://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N!A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested {acres): NA
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental. Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's} responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 9

1. Will the project impact
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B
2B .0250 (Randleman
identify
protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
tules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
)? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
*
Zone Impact
( uare feet)
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
XI.
' Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. 29.6%
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
Municiple-Sewer Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .OSOOj or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
uPa~a i vv2oos
Page 8 of 9

XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Adverse impacts to water Quality are not anticipated due to the minimal wetland
disturbance and the planned stream and wetlands enhancement project.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
7
Applic~ntlAgent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11!1!2005
Page 9 of 9

Estes Desittn Inc.
07-1248
Agent Certification Of Authorization
I ~r~ ~IPiPer representing oun r ~~ ~-~.
Of Address:
l S-$ ~. "7"'~.r~oQ S~-. Su.~e ~cx~ Cl~~,- foie L a~oaoT
do hereby certify that I have authorized Estes Design Inc. environmental design and
consulting to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing,
issuance and acceptance of this permit and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this ap licati is true and accurate to the
best of our know ge.
Appll ant's signature Agent's signatur
Date
Date
• P.O Box 79133 Charlotte, N.C. 28271-7050 • Phone 1 Fax [phone] •

Impervious calculations
Total Lots in Ph-1 = 48, Total Lots in Ph-2 = 229, Total Lots in Project = 277, 3000SF impervious
per lot
Total Project Area = 4,707,026SF, 108.058AC
Streets = 445,372SF, 10.224AC
Sidewalks = 91,223SF, 2.094AC
Lots = 831,000SF, 19.077AC
Clubhouse = 25,739SF, 0.591AC
Total Impervious Area = 1,393,334SF, 31.987AC
Total %Impervious = (1,393,334SF / 4,707,026SF) x 100 = 29.601°~
DAVIN MORRISON, E.I.
PROJECT ENGINEER
EAGLE ENGINEERING, INC.
704-882-4222 (PH)
704-882-4232 (F)

07-124$
~,.,
.j' ~ r,?,$~t3~ ~u -yr~,,,,~ '~ 7:~:. APPROXIMATE SITE
• _z,c. ~ ~a~e~•a~ ~a F °a~ ~ LOCATION AND
~~.
,„, ..
~~§~~' ~ PROPERTY BOUNDARY
~.: .,,
. f - te" e'
s „
,t:~`~'
'_
2 k >t. i
' -
... i ~ L ,. S L ..r.{..
L
V' .
.• w~ ... i e r' 2! -.
~.. ~,r~ i qs.~t ~ - - ~77P ~~ T ~:s°i ~ C7>aprai€5n
_ - -
•• t
~~ ~ ~~~ ~ i. ..
-s '. '~ x4
,. i ~ .
' ~•
x sue' ,.r~ ~ ~ ~. _., ti .. ~.,.
~.~
" i ~ 7/AG 'Hier
,.
_ -=_:
-- v
~ .~
c~
~ ~ `
. ~ ~~.
F
~ dL ~~
" r i
'a ~~ .4. .
~ '
_ ~~
~~
~~~~1~ I~ _ 4 ~;~,;.A~ruxirr~ate Map -Waters of t'hSE ONIr~ ~~ ~~ ¢~
'ice ~ 9dIY~~f 1IY~Y`V 351~~~.~ ~',l'~~.~. 5 i
~~ F ~ ~~~~_•:~~_~_;~~ FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPO
~`~ ;''' ~ ~~': ~~`~~~£'*~ ~ ,~ ~"~= SUBJECT TO U,S.A.C.E. VERIFICATIOtV ~~
,~ ,~ +
° ,- " ~ sip, ~~~• ~:~ ..
Scale: Not To Scale
Figure 4: Date: July 14, 2005
Wetland Determination Site Map: Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program Inc.
Survev Dated Mav 19. 2005
Site Name: Young's Pond
~111~,~J~~C` Easttield Road
~Jf~ ~~jj~~'' Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, N.C.
'1Cb~fian Tim-F,mv. R3 Project Number: 2912-E-NC
,.. r.,~..~,.--~

07-1248
Estes Designn_c_
Environmental Design & Consulting
F'.O. kiox 79133 Charlotte, N.C. 28271
Project Yongs Pond / Meridale Phase I
Name:
Project No.: 0667 Sample No.: A
Date: 9{23/06 By: CJE
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on site? ' No Community ID: A
Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? 1"es Field Map No.:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: A
(Ifneeded, explain on reverse.)
V L' liP,l A-ItU1V (Note those s ties observeA to have m hotog]Cal aaaprahons ro weuanas wiul a °)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species
1 • Fraxinus pennsylvanica T FACW 9.
2 Fraxinus americanus T FACU 10.
3• Acer negundo T FACW 11.
4• Acer rubrum T FAC 12.
s. Juncus Effusus H FACW+ 13.
6" Carex sp H FACW- 14.
i ~.
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing
morphological adaptations to wetlands. 5/6 = 80%
Stratum Indicator
Describe Morphological Adaptations: Hypertrophied lenficels, advanticious roots
Kemarks:
This sample plot is in a Forested Upland. All woody species are mature suggesting previous agricultural exclusion.
uvnunt .ru.v
__ Recorded Data (Describe in Remazks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
_X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Reco~ed Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
X_ Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks

Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: 6" (in.)
X
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: din.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil (in.) ~~ (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
The soil survey indicates Moderately Well Drained Soil.

SOILS
Map Unit Name: Helena, HeB Drainage Class: WD
Taxonomy Field Observations
(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes: No:X
Clayey, mixed thetmicAquic Hapludalfs
Profile Description:
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth (inches) Horizon lIylu~eli Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres etc.
0-6" A 2SYR 5/5 2.5 YR 4/4 Few/Distinct Sandy clay loam
7-14" B1 lOYR 6/6 2.5 YR 7/3 Common/Distinct clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _~ X _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon ___ High Organic Content in Surface Layer
, Sulfidic Odor ____ Organic Streaking
__
_
X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed in Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils Lists
K Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wet
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yas No
Hydric Soils Present? 1`es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Drainage way

Estes Design Inc.
Environmental Design 8 Consulting
i'.O. Rox 79133 Charlotte, N.C. 2A271
Project Yongs Pond / Meridale Phase I
Name:
Project No.: 0667 Sample No.:
Date: 9/23104 By: CJE
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
A2
02
Do Normal Circumstances exist on site? No Community ID: A
Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? I'es Field Map No.:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Z"es Plot ID: ~
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION (Note those anecies observed to have momholosical adavtations to wetlands with a *)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 ~ Fraxinus pennsylvanica T FACW 9.
2• Fraxinus americanus T FACU 10.
3. Acer negundo T FACW 11.
4• Acer rubrum T FAC 12.
5' Ligustrum inensis S FAC 13.
6. 14.
7.
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing
morphological adaptations to wetlands. 4/6 = 67%
Describe Morphological Adaptations: None
Remarks:
Edge of a drainageway
HYDI20LOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks}:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
X Aerial Photographs
~~
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks

Drill Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Dratnage Patterns in Wetlands
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
llepth to Free Water in Pit: >12" Iin.} Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12" (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
The soil survey indicates Moderately Well Drained Soil.

SOILS
Map Unit Name: Helena, HeB Drainage Class: WD
Taxonomy Field Observations
(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes: No:X
Clayey, mixed thermicAquic Hagludalfs
Profile Deacrintion:
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth (inches) Horizon jMunaell Moist) {Mansell Moist Alwndarrce/Contrast Rhizosoherea, etc.
0-ti" A 2.SYR 4/4 None Sandy clay loam
7-14" B1 lOYR 5/4 2.5 YR 7/3 Few/Distinct clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol X __ _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer
_ Sulfidic Odor ____ Organic Streaking
_Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed in Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions __ Listed on National Hydric Soils Lists
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Cotors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Sample taken in an upland
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Adjacent to Drainage way

Estes Qes ig n lnc. Project Name: Youngs Pond / Meridate Phase I
Environmental Design&Consutting ProjectNo.: 0667 SampleNo.: B2
!'.O. 3oz 79133 Charlotte, N.C. 28271 Date: 9.23.06 By: cje
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on site? Yes No Community ID: 1
Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Yes No Field Map No.: B
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ~"es No Plot ID: B2
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
v L' liG 1H r rvi~ tNOL6 hose 8t~C1CS ODSBNfA W I13VC I[lO1pIi010gIC31 803 ra00n910 WCU3r103 Vv1ID 3
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
L Liriodendron tulipifera t FAC 9.
2. Ulmus americana t faces 10.
3. Sedge sp. h faces 11. _
4. Rubus Species h fac 12. _
5. Liquidambar sryaci~lua t fac+ 13. _
6. 14. _
7. 15. _
x. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(except FAC-). Include species noted (#) as showing
morphological adaptations to wetlands. 5/5=100%
Describe Morphological Adaptations: None
Remarks:
Open, partial canopy.
uvnu~i.nrv
____Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
_ X _ Aerial Photographs
---~~
_No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits

Depth of Surface Water: (in.} Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: > 18 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

SOILS
Map Unit Name: Cecil. CeD2 Drainage Class: Wetl Drained
Taxonomy Field Observations
(Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes: No:
Profile Description:
117~trix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth (inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) {Mansell Moist) Abundance/Conhasi 12hizospheres, etc.
6 B2 SYR 4/6 None None
6-12 B3 2.SYR 4/5 2.5YR 5/6 Few/distinct
Hydric Soil Indicators :
Histosol x Concretions
____ Histic Epipedon _
_
_ __ .- -High Organic Content m Surface Layer
Sulfidic Odor _ x -Organic Streaking
x Aquic Moisture Regime Listed in Local Hydric Soils List
__x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils Lists
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
~'
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? 1"zs No
Wetland Hydrology Present`? Yes No
Remarks:
Sample taken in Upland

Estes QeS ign rne. Project Name: Youngs Pond / Meridale Phase I
Environmental Design 8 Co~~~ Project No.: 0667 Sample No.: B
'.O. Sox 79133 Chariottc, N.C. 28271 s"r..~, Date: 9.23.06 By: cje
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on site? Yes Niti Community ID: B
Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Z~es No Field Map No.:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? 1'es No Plot ID: B
(lfneeded, explain on reverse.)
V Llil+/ 1 A 11U1V (Note [hose species observed to nave molPnologlcal aaaptanons [o weuanas wtm a ~)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Sgecies Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera t FAC 9.
2. Hibiscus h obl 10.
3. J:~ncus efJiesus h faces 11.
4. Sedge sp. h faces 12.
g. Rubus Species h fac 13.
6. Liquidambar styaciflua t fac+ 14.
7. Ulmus americana t faces 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing
morphological adaptations to wetlands.
Describe Morphological Adaptations: Hypertrophied lenticels, Advanticious roots
Remarks:
Open, partial canopy
rtvnunt.nrv
___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
X Aerial Photographs
-~~
_No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches
X Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits
X Ihainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) X
(hcidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8" (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3" (n,) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Areas approx. 3-4 feet below the delineated boundary are inundated.

SOILS
Map Unit Name: Cecil CeD2 Drainage Cass: Well Drained
Taxonomy Field Observations
(Subgroup): Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? es: Nu:
Profile Description:
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Depth tinchesD Horizon [Mansell Moistl QvIunsell Moisfl Alnmdance/Contrast 121rizospherea, etc.
5 B2 2SYR 4/6 7.5 YR 5/5 Common/distinct
6-12 B3 2.SYR 4/4 7.SYR 7/3 Many prominent
Hydric Soil Indicators :
Histosol x Concretions
Histic Epipedan __ High Organic Content in Surface Layer
Sulfidic Odor x _Organic Streaking
x Aquic Moisture Regime Listed in Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils Lists
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1'es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Tas No
Hydric Soils Present? 1 as No
Wetland Hydrology Present? I'es No
Remarks:

7-1248
Lis ~ ..
• v . L d
¢a .~ ~ +..
~~ .
.e •-
G'a,.
~.
~4
~~~
r .r.='lvr ~fa J
1 ~- ~ ~ ~
a+
! r
¢~ ~ r
!~
C
h9 '
1,
• SITE
rt ~5.., ~,~ __
;a, -.
5JFe1 L~ r_'i
a~~ - ~~i
~ Mh ki~pE il° ~ ,~ ~
~~
,. - K,
i.?J
U .~
(i=J V I
ij
.,u t~ .
V ~~ wwe ~
f •` ~L
Estes Design Inc. Youngs Pond Phase 1&2 Project Site
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Environmental Design & Consulting
f' Cl. Rnx I~1133 CF4~rlnttr., Nc 2sv~ Location Map

Estes Design Inc.
Environmental Design & Consulting
P.C}. Rnx /~(1:i~ rt~Eriottr, NC; 2R~/1
Youngs Pond Phase 182 Project Site
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
USGS Topo Map
MN o _ s i MMEE
p/,otl ~OOUFEEf 0 500 ~~O~ETIAS
1 Msp cmated with TOPOI®®ZfA3 Natnml 6eog~ephic (www mtiamsigeog~apk~ic wmftopo)

Phase I Wetlands
Estes Design Inc.
Environmental Design & Consulting
f' C}. Rnx /1133 C:fYtrintt~, NC: 2R2I1
Youngs Pond Phase 1 ~2 Project Site
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
GPS Overlay

Photo 2: mew of Wetlands Area B
Estes Design Inc.
Environmental Design & Con~su~ g~
f' C}. Rix r~1133 C:tu~rtoite, NC: 2R2Y1
Youngs Pond Phase 1 ~2 Project Site
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Photographs Phase II
Photo 1: View of Wetlands Area A

.,' APPROXNIIATE SRE LOCATION
~i'*~ AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY
.~' ~,~
a- _: ~ NN
. -~
~,:~
~F?~a Q , s
~~~ ~ ~ !_;'::~I
.~
'~~JJ ~f1
.,,~.,
~i
~~~~
F
f ••~
,.
Estes Design Inc . Youngs Pond Phase 1 ~2 Project Site
Environmental Design & Consulting ,~~'~' Mecklenburg County, N.C.
f' C}. Rnx l~133 Ch,~rlnttc, NC: ?R2l1 „Y Soils Map

07-1248
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19.20,2006
5. Name of stream: Bl-D-Ol
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order: 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
ll. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flaaftina: Ditch Bl-D-Ol
14. Proposed channel work (if any}: grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditivns: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
14. Does channel appear on IJSGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank}: 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) X Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: X Straight _ Occasional bends -Frequent meander _ Very sinuous -Braided channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located oo page Zl: Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain,
vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same eeoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range
shown for [he 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 chamcteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide
an explanation in [he 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 core of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49 Comments:
Channel is a ditch; with a Iwnd located down stream. Channel is located to the east of the on-site pond approximately
150 feet west of Placer Mante Lane.
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data
required by the Unfted States Army Corps of Engineers 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 06/03. to comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

v~
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION PO1NT RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream ~
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 Q
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5 4
(no buffer = 0; eonti wows, wide buffer = max rots)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0.3 0- 4 0- 4 0
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 2 Q
~, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
ox. 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
' 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 4
(no wetlands = O; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max rots)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 ~
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
(extensive de sition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots}
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints)
1 ~ Evidence of channel incision or widening 0.5 0 - 4 0 - S 4
(dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
F
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 S
(were erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)
~ 14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
F no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max rots)
~
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0.3 0 - 5 0 - 6 I
(no riffleslri les or ols = 0; well-develo = max rots)

~
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 4
H (little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max oints)
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 $
(no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max rots)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(de 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max rots}
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 U - 5 0 - 5 ~
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
~"'
C7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 Q
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
a
C
22
Presence of ffsh
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
~
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 4
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 49
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT W ORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angeliyue Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20,2006
5. Name of stream: Dl-C-05
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 Feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order. 1
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known}: prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.87231.2): 35.361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams} location):
Near flaEalnQ: Dl-C-OS
14. Proposed channel work (if any): grading/ctearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Water ,-Nutrient Sensitive Waters _ Water Supply Watetshed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 15000
square feet.
19. lloes channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _%o Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
lnslrucdoos 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 [he worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall
assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. Tf a characteristic canna be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter D 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. [he stream flows from a pasture into a
(ores[), [he stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate Corm used [o evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
[o a stream reach must range between 0 and I (l0, with a score of I(>n representing a stream of [he highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse}: 69 Comments:
Channel located approximately 200 feet downstream of on-site pond, located at fla8tinl: Dl-C-
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evatuadoa form is intended 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 to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does twt imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject [o change -
version Ofi/03. to comment, please call 919-87fi-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTI
S ECOREGION POIN T RANGE SCORE
C Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max rots)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5 q
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = cnax Dints)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0.5 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0.3 0- 4 0- 4 ~
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 2 Q
y, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 ~
(lee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 ~
acent wetlands = max rots)
(no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de sition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max Dints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 U - S ~
(lee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5 $
.a
.. (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 2
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throe bout = max rots}
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 5
(no riffles/ri les or Dols = 0; well-level ed = max rots)

d
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 $
(little or no babitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max Dints)

Q
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 4
x (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max rots)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 4
(lee 1 embedded = d; loose structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 4 0 5 0 - 5 Q
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)

~
2l Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 2
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = tnax rots)
O
22
mma n
su
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
2
~ t s = max rots)
(no evidence = 0; co
numero
~3 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 4
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max Dints)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 69
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20,2006
5. Name of stream: Dl-C-08
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order: 1
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision natrre (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35361081 Longitude (ex. -77.SS6611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flaaainE: Channel Dl-C-08
14. Proposed channel work (if any}: grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 15000
square feet.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
20. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10°k) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander X Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining [he most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain,
vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign paints to each characteristic within the range
shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how [o review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall
assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a chamcteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring boz 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
foresQ, 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): 57 Comments:
Located at flaaainf Dl-C-08 annroximately 220 feet downstream of on-site pond Area is anyroximately 400 feet south
of Placer Manle Lane.
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environnteolal professionals in gathering the data
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a prellmioary assessment of stream quality. The tots! score resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requtrrmenL Form subject to change -
version 06/03. [o comment, please call 919-876-8441 z 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERLSTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 ~
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max inis)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0.6 0 - S 0 - 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max int<s)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max inis)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots)

5 Groundwater discharge p_ 3 0- 4 U- 4 ~
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
5 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 ~
~., (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
a ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 ~
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0.6 0- 4 0- 2 ~
acent wetlands = max rots)
(no wetlands = 0; 1• a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de sition = 0; little or no sediment = max inis
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(d I incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 2
F (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu bout = max rots)
~ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
15 (substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
Presence of riffle-poolhipple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- S 0- 6 2
16 (no riffles/ri les or Ls = 0; well-develo d = max inis)

17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 5
N (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints)
~
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 4
y (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max int<s)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 4
{de 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max inis}
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 ~
20 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots}
C7 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 ~
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
"~
O
22 Presence of fitsh
0-4
0-4
0-4 0
~ {no evidence = 0; comcimn, numerous t s = max inis)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- b 0- 5 0- 5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max inis)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 57
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streamti.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineeri»g, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20,20116
5. Name of stream: EI-C-OI/Dl-C-02
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order: 2/1, respectively
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision natter (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flaeaine: El-C-Ol/Dl-C-02 annroximately 100 feet down stream of on-site pond.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): grading/elearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
1200 square feet.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ~% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
20. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) _Gentle (2 to 4°k,) X Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander _ Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet Qorated 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 [o site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring boz and provide
an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g. [he stream flows from a pasture into a
tbres[), the scream 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 i00 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 56 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners aad environmental professionals in gathering the data
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does rat imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement Form subject to change -
version 06103. to rnmment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# HARA
TERLSTICS ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
C
C Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 0
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max rots)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)
3 ~u
usa 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
w d buffer = max rots)
(no buffer = 0; con
o
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max into)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 0
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - Z 2
y, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
ox, ~ Entrenchment / floodpLain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
dee 1 entrenched = 0; f went floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 4
(no wetlands = O; lar a adjacent wetlands = max rots)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 ~
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 S
tttl
r n
u 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 3
(extensive de sition
sediment = max rots)
0; li
e o
o
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0.5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
F
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 5
(were erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

~
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 4
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw howl = max rots)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0.5 0 _ 4 0 - 5 0
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max inch)
16 Presence of riftle•pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 5
(no riffles/ri les or is = 0; well-develo = max rots)

d
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 4
~ (little ar no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max rots)
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 5
(no shadin ve ekation = 0; continuous cano = max rots}
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
(no evidence - 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)

C7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 0
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous s = max rots)
a
~
22
Presence of fish
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
~
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 56
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map}
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 14-20, 2006
5. Name of stream: Fl-C-OUGl-C-03
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order. 2
10, County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial.) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Lceation of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flaa~ins: F1-C-Ol/Gl-C-03 annroximately 300 feet down stream from on-site Iwnd.
1.4. Proposed channel work (if any}: grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrsent Sensitive Waters _ Water Sapply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 15000
square feet.
19. Dces channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ND ?A. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight _ Occasional bends X 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 classitication, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range
shown for [he ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scrores 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 mote continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
[o a stream teach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 56 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and ~viroamental professionals in galheriag the data
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of strum quality. The total srore resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a parflcular mitigation ratio or requirement- Form subject to change -
version 06/03. to comment, please ca11919-R76-A441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow !persistent pools in stream 0 _ S 0 - 4 0 - S 1
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max rots)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- S 0- S 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration-- max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - S 4
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max rots)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- S 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots)
a S Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 0
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - S
0 - 4
0 - 2 2
y, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
~ 7 Entrenchment ! floodplain access 0- S 0- 4 0- 2 I
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
' 0- 6 0- 4 ~0 - 2 1
(no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max arts)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- S 0- 4 D- 3 I
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots
10 S
i u
r n
u 0 - S 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
(extensive de sition
le o
sediment = max rots)
0; l
o
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - S I
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 _ S 0 - 4 0 - S 3
(d 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - S
0 - S
~0 - S q
(were erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-S 2
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max rots)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 +D - 5 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)

16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0 - 3
0 - S
0 - 6 I
(~ riffles/ri les or is = 0; well-devel = max rots)

Q
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 5
F (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max rots)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - S
0 - 5
0 - 5 4
x (no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max rots)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 3
( 1 embedded = 0; base structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - S ~
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 U- 4 2
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots
a
~
22
Presence of fish
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
~
~y (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots
~3 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- S 4
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 56
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WUKKSHEIJ'1'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 14-20, 20116
5. Name of stream: Gl-C-02
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order: 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.OS795 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.66662
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) loc;ation):
Near flat=_aina: GI-C-02 annroximately 300 feet down stream from on-site yond.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Water -Nutrient Sensitive Waters _ Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 15000
square feet.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES N~ 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES N~
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4°k) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
[nstructions tar 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. Scoter should reflect an overall
assessment of [he 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), [he 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 1O0, with a score of 10(l representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist -andowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 rmtigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -
version 06/03. [o comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERLSTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain CORE
1 Presence of flow l persistent pools in stream 1
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max int5) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5 q
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max rots)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges q
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4
.a 5 Groundwater discharge 0 3 0- 4 0- 4 p
~ (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 2
j, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 2
a
~ Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 - 5
0 - 4
~0 - 2 1
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 1
(no wetlands = O; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max rots)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input p- 5 0- 4 0- 4 q
(extensive de osition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 'D - 5 2
(fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 _ ~ 0 - 4 ~D - 5 3
~ (dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 q
(were erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)
~
Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 2
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hoot = max rots)
15 impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 t) - 5 q
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 S
(no riffles/ri les or is = 0; well-develo d = max rots)
E"'
d
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 5
F (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = cnax oints)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - S
0 - S
0 - 5 q
x (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous c~ano = max rots)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 (1- 4 3
(dee 1 embedded = O; loose structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 _ 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 ~
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max oints)
~"
~
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
CI-4 2
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
G 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 p
Q (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max rots)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 q
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAI, SCORE (also enter on first a e) 61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineerirg, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20, 2006
5. Name of stream: Hl-C-Ol
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221. sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order: 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flaseins: Hl-C-Ol annroximately 700 feet west of Placer Manle Lane.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): grading/elearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
~5 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed [o top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight _ Occasional bends -Frequent meander X Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions Cor completion of worksheet (located on page Z): Begin by determining [he most appropriate ecategion based on location, terrain,
vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign paints to each characteristic within the range
shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of haw to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall
assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. ff 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 strewn reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of I(Hl representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 52 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used ody as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a prelimirrary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a parflcutar mitigation ratio or requirement, Form subject to change -
version 06/03. [o comment, please ca11919-g7G-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERIST
CS Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5 Q
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max rots)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5 4
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max rots)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
{extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots}
~ 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 ~
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 2 Q
y, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
ax, 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 ~
acent wetlands = max rots)
(no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de sition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
(fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
(dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 4
(were erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

~
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 2
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots iluou bout = max rots)
15 Impact by agrkulture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 3
(no riffles/ri les or is = 0; well-devel = max rots)

d
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 4
(little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 4
~ (no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max ~~)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 3
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max rots)
~0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - S 0 - 5 ~
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)

C7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 Q
p {no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
.a
C
22
Presence of fish
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
~
oa (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max oints)
~3 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Passible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 52
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WUKKSHEL+'"1
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Ellgineeri»g, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20, 2006
5. Name of stream: Ii-C-03/Jl
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order. 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any}: NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.36108]. Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flaa8ins• Il-C-03 auuroximately 300 feet south/southewest of Placer Maule Lane.
14. Proposed channel work (if any}: grading/elearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
20. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat {0 to 20%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight _ Occasional bends -Frequent meander X Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecotegion 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 chazacteristics 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 scare of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 51 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be use only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data
required by the LJniled States Arnty Corps of Et~oeers W make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a particular mitigalion ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -
version 05/03. to comment, please call 919-875-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERLSTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream U
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max rots) p _ 5 0 - 4 0 - 5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5 p
(no buffer = 0; wnti uous, wide buffer = max rots

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 ~
~ (no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. =max. rots)
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain ~
~ (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 2
~ 7 Entrenchment ! floodplain access
0 - S
0 - 4
0 - 2 ~
dee I entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 Q
(no wetlands = 0; 1• a ad
acent wetlands = max rots)
9 Channel sinuosity p_ S 0- 4 0- 3 '~
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de sition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
(Fme, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oinks)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening p _ 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(dee I incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~

13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 Q
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

14 Root depth and demity on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5 3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu bout = max rots}
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 Presence of riffle-poollrippie-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 5
(no riffles/ri les or is = 0; well-develo d = max oints)

Q
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 4
(little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints)

1S Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 Q
x (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max rots)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(d I embedded = 0; loose structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) p - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 ~
(no evidence = 0; com[~n, numerous t s = max oints}

C7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 Q
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
'~
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4 Q
Gq (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - S ~
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots}
Total Points Possible I00 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 51
* These characteristicsore not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map}
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20, 200b
5. Name of stream: Il-C-04
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
S. Stream order. 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flaagilla:ll-C-04 annroximately 300 feet south/southewest of Placer Maule Lane.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _%n Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _%o Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander R Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for rnmpletion of worksheet (located on page Z}: 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 chamcteristic 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 [he stream reach under evaluation. ]f a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in [he 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 mote continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and I00, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 66 Coml~nts:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and enviromnenlal professionals in gatherittg the data
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 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 ~t imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -
version 06/03. to comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POIN T RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - S 0 - 4 0 - 5 l
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max rots)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; na alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5 4
(no buffer = 0; Conti wows, wide buffer = max rots}
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 2
~ (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots}
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 2 Q
~., (na flaod lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots}
y
~ Entrenchment t floodplain access
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 2 I
{dee 1 entrenched = 0; f went floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 ~
acent wetlands = max rots)
(no wetlands = O; lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 4
(extensive channelizafion = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de sition = O; little or no sediment = max rots)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 $
(fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 $
(d 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
F-
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - S
0 - 5
0 - 5 5
(were erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
U-3
0-4
0-5 4
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw howl = max rots)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 ~~~ of riffle-poolhipple-pool complexes 0.3 0.5 0 - 6 5
(no riffleslri les or is = 0; well-develo ed = max rots)

d
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 4
H (little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max oints)
~
18 Canopy twverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 4
(no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max rots)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max rots)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5 Q
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max oints
~"'
C7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 0
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
G 2~ Presence of fish 0.4 0- 4 0- 4 ~
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max oints)
~3 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 66
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map}
ST Kr;AM (ZUALI'1'Y AaJL~ JJIVII~ir 1 W uxn~n>G>G i
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluatian: July 19-20, 2006
5. Name of stream: Jl-C-02
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order. 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any}: NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location}:
Near flasaint=_• Tl CA2 anuroximately 300 feet south/southewest of Placer Manle Lane.
14. Proposed channel work (if any}: grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NU 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES ND
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ~ Flat (0 to 20%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) _ Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%o)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight _ Occasional bends Frequent meander X Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet pocaled on page Z): 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 [he 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 boz 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 (frafn reverse): 54 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowcers and environmental professionals in gathering the data
required by the United States Army Corps of Etq;ineers to make a preliminary asse~ment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not itrgtly a parflcular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -
version 06/03. to comment, please call 919-876-8441 x ?6.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream ~
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - S
2 Evidence of past human alteration 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots) 0_ 6 0- 5 0- 5
3 Riparian zone ~
(no buffer = 0; wnti uous, wide buffer = max rots) 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 4
{extensive dischar es = 0; na dischar es = max rots) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 ~
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
~
G Presence of adjacent floadplain ~
~ (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 2
a ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access ~
{dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max rots) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands ~
(no wetlands = 0; I• a ad'acent wetlands = max oints) 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2
9 Channel sinuosity 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3
10 Sediment input 0- S 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de sition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
*
4
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints} NA 0 - 4 0 - 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 4
(dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots} 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
~
13 ~'~~ of major bank failures 4
~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5
~
14 Root depth and density on banks 4
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw bout = max rots) 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 4 p - 5
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 5
(no rifftes/ri les or is = 0; well-level = max rots) 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6
17 Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6 q
(little or no habitat = 0; fre vent, varied habitats = max oints)
~
1 Canopy coverage over streambed q
x (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max rots)
0-5
0-5
0-5
19 Substrate embeddedncss NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(dee i embedded = 0; loose structure = max rots}
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) ~
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - S
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
C 22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4 ~
pq (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- b 0- 5 0- 5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints}
Total Points Possible 100 100 I00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 54
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20, 2006
5. Name of stream: Kl-C-01
7. Approxitnate drainage area: 7,221 sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 a~-150(1 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order. 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known}: prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.3b1081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.8071b1
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Near flagt=ina• Kl-C-01 at-nroximateiy 350 feet south/southwest of Placer Magle Lane.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estitnated watershed land use: 20 %o Residential _% Comtl~rcial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 20 % Cleared _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream _ Flat (0 to 20%} -Gentle (2 to 4°l0) X Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _Stranght _ Occasional bends -Frequent meander X 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 fbr the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identiSed 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 srnring boz 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 flaws from a pasture into a
forest), [he 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): 51 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data
required by the United Stag Army Corps of Engineers to crake 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 parficutar mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -
version 06103. to comment, please ca119'19-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERLSTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0.5 0 - 4 0 - 5 0
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max rots)

2 Evidence oP past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 $
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - S $
(no buffer = 0; wnti uous, wide buffer = max rots)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
{extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 0
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots}
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 2 0
~~., (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
(no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max rots)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots}
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de osition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints}
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
(d 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 4
(were erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - S ~
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throe hoot = max rots}
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 5
(no riffleslri les or Ls = 0; well-develo = max rots)
17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 5
(little or no habitat = 0; fre cent, varied habitats = max rots}

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 4
x (no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max ~~)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(de I embedded = 0; loose structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates. (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots}
~"
C7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 0
p {no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
p
22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4 0
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots}
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 ~
(no evidence = d; abundant evidence = max rots
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) 51
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map}
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagie Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angeiique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20, 2006
5. Name of stream: Ll-C-04
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221. sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
8. Stream order. 1
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivisian name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Togo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and athdch map identifying dream(s) location):
Near flaa$ina: Ll-C-04. Located annroximatelY 150 feet east of western abutting subdivision.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): grading/clearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. 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)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19.
20. Dces channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 %a Residential _% Comrt>ercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested ~ % Cleared _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull width: 5'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) X Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight _ Occasional bends -Frequent meander X 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 uoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range
shown for [he 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 streatm 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 sectiat. 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): 64 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals io gathering the data
required by fhe United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliuninary assessment oP stream quality. The total scare resulting from the
completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Fotm subject to change -
version OG103. to comment, please ca11919-A7frti441 x 2l~.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERLSTICS ECORE GION POINT RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow !persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max rots)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots)

3 Riparian wne
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5 4
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max rots)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 2
~ (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see ~, wetlands, etc. = max rots}
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - S
0 - 4
0 - 2 Q
y, (no flood .lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
a 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 ~
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max rots
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 ~
acent wetlands = max rots)
(no wetlands = 0; 1• a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots
10 ~e
u
S 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
or no
(extensive de sition
sediment = max rots)
0;
11 ~~ & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 ~
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max Dints
1 ~ Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 ~
(dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
~
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-S
0-5 $
~
~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-S 3
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max rots)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im aci = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple•pool complexes 0.3 0 - 5 0 - 6 5
(no riffles/ri les or 1s = 0; well-level = max rots)

d
17 Aabitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 $
F (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max Dints)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5 3
x (no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max rots)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 3
(d 1 embedded = O; loose structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - S ~
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)

~
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 Q
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
.a
~
22
Presence of fish
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
2
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
~3 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- S 0- 5 ~
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first a e) b3
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALl`I'Y ASSr:JJML+'1V'1' W ux>Katilt,ltll<
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Eagle Engineering, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: Angelique Y.W. Crews
3. Date pf evaluation: July 19-20, 2006
5. Name of stream: Nl-C-Ol
7. Approximate drainage area: 7,221. sq. miles
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
4. Time of evaluation: 0930 am-1500 pm
6. River basin: Yadkin
$. Stream order. 2
10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.361081 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 80.807161
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location}:
Near flasaifla• N2-C-Ol Located ayuroximately 200 feet southeast of western abuttinz: subdivision.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): gradingjclearing development
15. Recent weather conditions: dry, 90 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dry 93 Fahrenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Water -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters _ Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Cotnmercial _% Industrial 25 % Agricultural
35 % Forested 2Q % Cleared _% Other ( )
20. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _ Flat (0 to 20°10) -Gentle (2 to 4%) X Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight _ Occasional bends Frequent tneander X Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining Ehe 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 togl score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 1(Ml, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 65 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended 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 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 raflo or requirement. Form subject to change -
version 06103. to comment, please ca11919-R7fi-R441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream ~
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max rots) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 S
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max rots}

3 Riparian zone
0 - b
0 - 4
0 - 5 q
(no buffer = 0; wnti uous, wide buffer = max rots)
4 Evidence of nutrient ar chemical discharges q
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max rots) 0- S 0- 4 0- 4
...7 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 () - 4 2
Q (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max rots)
U
b Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - Z p
y, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max rots)
~ 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- S 0- 4 0- 2 ~
(dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max rots)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 2 q
(no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max rots}
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max rots)
10 Sediment input 0- S 0- 4 0- 4 q
(extensive de sition = 0; little or no sediment = max rots)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
(fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints}
12 Evidence of channel incision or wideni~ 0 _ 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 q
~ {d 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max rots)
F
:
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-S
0-S
0-S $
a
~. (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots)

d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-S 3
~ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw bout = max rots)
i S Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0- 5 0- 4 0- S q
(substantial im act = 0; no evidence = max rots)
16 ~~~ of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- S 0- 6 5
(no riffles/ri les or is = 0; well-develo d = max rots)

~
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-b S
F (little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max oints)
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - S
U - S
0 - 5 ~
(no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max rot`s)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 ~
(de 1 embedded = O; loose structure = max rots)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - S ~
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max rots)
~"
L7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 2
p (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max rots)
G 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 ~
q (no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = xnax rots)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- b 0- S 0- S q
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints}
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE {also enter on first a e) 6S
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: July 19-20, 2006 Pro'ect: 2242-E La[imde:35.3G02
Evaluator: Angetique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC Longi[ude:80.R070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)
16
i
l
i
i
5
S "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
s at
east
nterm
ttent
.
tream quadrangle map
if >_I9 or perennial if ~0
A. GeomornholoQV (Subtotal = 4.5)
Channel Bl-D-01
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1°. Continuous bed and bank Q 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence Q I 2 3
4. Solt texture or stream substrate sorting Q 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0 i 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 i 2 3
s. Recent alluvial deposits 0 i 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 l 2 3
t L Grade controls 0 0.$ 1 i.$
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 Q.$ 1 1.$
1.3 Second or greater order channel an existine USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 5.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
14. Groundwater Bowldischarge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and >4& hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or owin season Q 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter i.$ I Q.$ Q
17. Sediment on plants or debris Q 0,$ 1 i.$
18. Organic debris tines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 Q.$ i LS
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 YeS = 1.5
25 YR 3/2
C. BioloQV (Subtotal = 7.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
20n. Fibrous roots in channel 3 ~ 1 Q
21°. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 Q
22. Crayfish 0 0.$ 1 1.$
23. Bivalves 0 i 2 3
24. Fish 0 Q.$ 1 1.$
25. Amphibians 0 Q.$ i i.$
2fi. Macrobenihos (note diversity and abundance) 0 Q.$ 1 1.$
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 Q.$ i 1.$
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaJfungus Q Q.$ 1 i.$
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; BB L = i.$ SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.} Sketch:
Ditch located near pond.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Jul 19-20, 2006 Pro ect: 2242-E Iatitude:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Tazan Si[e: Huntersville, NC Longitude:80.8070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other. (e.g. Quad Name)
Stream is at least intermittent 22.0 "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
quadrangle map
if 219 or perennial if 230
A. Geomornhologv (Subtotal =11.5)
Channel EI-C-OI/Dl-C-02
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1°. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structtue; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 ~ 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9°. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
lo. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 O.S 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on ex~sting_USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloev tSubtotal = 4.5)
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
14. Groundwater flowldischazge 0 1 2 3
Is. Water in channel and a48 hrs since rain; or
Water in dtannel - or win season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
IA. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1-~
19. Hydric soils (redozimorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
(iley 14/N
C. Biningv (Subtotal = 6.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
20". Fibrous roots in channel ~ ~ 1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
2s. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobendws (note diversity and abundance) 0 O.S i l.S
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 O.S 1 1.5
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 Q.5 1 l.5
29". Wetfand planes in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
° Items 20 and 2l focus on [he presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Oxidizetl Root Pattern.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Persian 3.1
Date: 7ul 19-20, 2006 Pro'ect 2242-E Latitude:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:R0.R070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: {e.g. Quad Name)

32
5
i
i
l
i "Derita, NC" 7..5-min. topographic
.
east
nterm
ttent
Stream
s at quadrangle map
if >_19 or perennial if ~0
c:nannei lit-c:-us
Absent Weak Moderate Strop
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 Z 3
R. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9°. Natural levees 0 1 2. ~
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 Q.5 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see dtscusstans m rrtanuat
u u..a,...r....., !C„l,r.,ral - S Cl
Absent Weak Moderate Strop
]4. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and >4R hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or owin season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 O.S 1 1.S
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 ~ l .$
19. Hydric soils {redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1 .5
tstey ~ aiionu

Absent Weak Moderate Strop
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 O.S 1 1.S
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobentfios (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.S
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 O.S 1 1.5
2R. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 0.S 1 1.5
29°. Wetland plants in stteambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 2f focus on the presence of upland ptants, Item Z9 incases on me presence of aquanc or weuana ptants.
Notes: (use back side of this farm for additional notes.) Sketch:
Seaver dim located 50-75 feet upstream.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Jul 19-20, 2006 Pro'ect: 2242-E Iatitude:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC L.ongitude:g0.A070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)
i
i
~6
~
l "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
east
nterm
ttent
.
Stream is at quadrangle map
if ?l9 w perennial if ?30
A. C,eomoroholoQV (Subtotal = 16.0)
Channel Dl-C-O8
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1°. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channelstmcture;riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recen[ alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9°. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
to. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
1 L Grade controls 0 O.S 1 1.5
12. Namrnl valley or drainageway 0 0.5 .1 1s
1.3 Second or greater order channel on ezistin USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R. HvdrnlnQV (Subtotal = 3.~)
--~ - ---
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stro
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
I5. Water in channel and >48 hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - d or win season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.S 1 0.5 0
l7. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.$ 1 l.s
1 S. Organic debris lines or piles {Wrack lines) 0 O.S 1 I .S
19. Hydric soils (redozimorphic features) present? No = 0 YeS = 1.5
lOYK 3/2
r Rinlnov (Sobtntal = 6.51
Absent Weak Moderate Str
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 O.S 1 l.S
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 O.S 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 O.S 1 1.5
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 O.S 1 1.S
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquauc or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Jul 19-2Q 2006 Pro'ect 2242-E Latitude:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Tazan Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:80.A070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: {e.g. Quad Name)
Stream is at least intermittent ZC).$ "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
quadrangle map
if >_19 or perennial if ?30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13.$)
Channel Fl-C-OI
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1'. Continuous bed and bank O 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting U 1 2 3
3. Activelrelic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bazs or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
R. Recent alluvial deposits O j 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 j 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
l L Grade controls O O.S 1 1.S
l2. Natural valley or drainageway 0 O.S j 1.$
1.3 Second or greater order channel on existinc USOS or NRCS
m or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge 0 j 2 3
15. Water in channel and >48 hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or owin season 0 j 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.S 1 O.S 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris O O.S 1 1.S
l8. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines} O 0.$ j j.S
19. Hydric soils {redozimorphic features) present? No = O Yes = 1.$
7YR 312
C. Biolotrv (Subtotal = 8.01
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 j O
21°. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 j 0
22. Crayfish O O.S j 1.S
23. Bivalves O j 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.$ j 1.S
25. Amphibians 0 O.S j 1.$
26. Macrobenthos {note diversity and abundance) O O.S j 1.S
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton O O.S 1 j.S
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus Q Q.$ 1 1.$
29°. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OB L = 1.S SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, hem 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (tale back side of this form for additional Hates.) Sketch:
Root Oxidization
Beaver Dam is backint=. un water from Channel Dl
into Channel Fl.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Tut 19-20, 2006 Pro'ect: 2242-E Latitude:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:R0.8070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)
21
l
i
i
0
S
i "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
.
s at
east
nterm
ttent
tream quadrangle map
if ?19 or perennial if ~0
Channel Gl-C-02
A. Geomornholoav (Subtotal = 15.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1°. Continuous bed and bank 0 I 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. Inchannel sttucture; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ~ 1 2 3
7. Braided channel ~ I 2 3
R. Recent alluvial deposits ~ 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees ~ 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 O.S I 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on existin USGS ar NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
NO = B
Yes = ~
° Man-made ditches are na rated; see discussions in manual
R. HvdroloEV (Subtotal = 3.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ~ 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and a48 hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or win season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris Q O.S 1 1.S
1 R. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.S 1 1 •~
19. Hydric sons (redoximotphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
75I'It 2.5-1
C_ Riningv (Subtotal = 3.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 ~
22. Crayfish ~ 0.5 1 LS
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 O.S 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 O.S 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) Q 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ~ 0.5 1 l.$
28. iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus 0 0.5 1 1.5
29°. Wetland plants in sireambed FAC = OS; FACW = 0.75; ~B l. = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Qther = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Water in channel due to back-un of water
from beaver dam at flasaina G1-02.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Bate: Jul 19-20, 2(106 Pro'ect 2242-E Iatimde:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:S0.R070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)
Jr
l
i
i
iG "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
Stream is at
east
nterm
ttent
. quadrangle map
if >_19 or perennial if ?30
A_ ('~nnu-rnhnir-QV (Suhtntal = 12.Q1
Channel HI-C-Ol
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil feature or stream substrate sorting 0 i 2 3
5. Activehelic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Bepositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 Z 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 1 Z 3
10. Readouts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.$ 1 1.5
!2. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.$ 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on ezistin USGS or NRCS
or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R_ Nvdrnlnnv (Suhtotai = O.S1
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
14. Groundwater flowldischarge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and >48 hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or owin season 0 1 2 3
16. leaf liner 1.$ 1 0.$ 0
L7. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.$ 1 1.$
l8. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 l.$
19. Hydric soils (redozimotphic features} present? NO = 0 Yes = L$
7.SYR 3/4
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 4.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
2(1". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21n. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.$ 1 1.$
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.$ 1 1.$
25. Amphibians 0 0.$ I 1.$
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.$ 1 1.$
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 0.$ 1 1.$
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus 0 0.$ 1 1.$
29°. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; BB L = 1.$ SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" [terns 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland punts, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Jul 19-20, 2006 Pro~ect: 2242-E Latitude:35.3G02
Evaluator: Angetique Y.W. Crews and Tazan Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:80.R070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)

31
0
i
l
i "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
.
nterm
ttent
Stream is at
east quadrangle map
if >_19 or perennial if ?30
l;hannel 11-L-114
~.__~___L..t..~.. ~c,.t.~..«.,t _ 7n Ol
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2, sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 l 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
l0. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
1 1. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on ezis[in USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence. NO = 0
Yes = 3
°lvtan-maae ar[enes are not ratea; see mscussrons m nrauua,
n rir_.~__r...-. .C,.t.~,...,t _ ~ m
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and >48 hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or owin season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
l7. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
IS. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.S
19. Hydric soils (redozimorphic features) present? No = 0 YeS = 1.$
lrley 1 J/,l.r DIVLL1Cli Wttu r.~ 1 n emu'
!~ R..il...nr lCnhtntal - G_til
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21n. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 0.5 1 LS
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; BB L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, nem zv focuses on me presence or aquatic or weuanu pruuu.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.} Sketch:
Assessed near flaBainQ Il-C-05

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 7u1 19-2Q 2006 Pro'ect: 2242-E Latitude35.3602
Evalua[oc Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC I.ongitude:80.8070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Muklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)

Stream is at least intermittent 21.5 "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic

if ?19 or perennial if ?30 quadrangle map
A. Geomorpholosv (Subtotal =13.5)
Channel Il-C-03 and JI-C-Ol
Absent Weak Moderate Stroh
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riftle-pool sequence 0 j 2 ~
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic fioodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 ~ 3
9°. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
l0. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 i 1.~
12. Namral valley or drainageway 0 0.$ 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on ezistinc USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal. _
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
I5. Water in channel and >48 hrs since rain; ar
Water in channel - or win season 0 i 2 3
16. Leaf litter 1.$ 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.$ i 1.$
iR. Organic debris lines of piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.$ 1 ),.$
19. Hydric soils (redozimotpltic features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
Gley 2 5/SB mottled with Gley 14-SGY
C. Biology (Subtotal =
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21n. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Craytish 0 0.$ 1 1.$
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.$ 1 1.$
25. Amphibians 0 ~.$ 1 1.$
26. Macrobenthos (torte diversity and abundance} 0 0.$ l i.$
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 0.$ 1 1.$
28. Iron oxidizing bacteaia/f'ungus 0 0.$ ) i.$
29". Wetland plants in strearnbed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OB I, = 1.S SAV = Z.O; atner = a
"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Jul 19-20, 2006 pro'ect: 2242-E Latitude:35.36(12
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Tazan Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:80.8070
B. Mazion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)
i
2Q
5
i "Detita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
ttent
Stream is at least
nterm
. quadrangle map
if ?19 or perennial if ~0
Channel JI-C-02
A. Geomor hol (Subtotal =16A
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
l'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. ht-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 0 i 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 i 2 3
5. Active/relic Floodplain 0 i 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided charnel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial depasi[s 0 i 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 i 2 3
10. Headcu[s 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 O.S 1 1.$
1.3 Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R_ Nvrlrnlrwv (Subtotal = 1.51
-J -_ ~__
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stron
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. water in channel and X48 hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - d or win season 0 i ~ 3
16. Leaf litter i.S 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 O.S i i.S
1 S. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines} 0 O.S 1 i.S
19. Hydric soils (redozimorphic features) present? NO = 0 Yes = 1.5
lOYR 4!4
!` Rinlrwv (Snhtnta) = 3.{11
--"'aa - -
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stron
20n. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21n. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 l 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 i 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 O.S i i.S
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 0.5 1 i.S
2R. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus 0 0.5 1 l.S
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; BB L = i.S SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item "l9 Tocuses on the presence of aquauc w wertanu p,auw.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Dale: Iul 19-20, 2006 Pro'ect: 2242-E Iatitude:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC I,ongitude:80.R070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)

t ZU
Jr
i
i
l "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
east
nterm
tten
.
Stream is at quadrangle map
if ? 19 or perennial if ~0

Channel Kl-C-Ul
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flondplain ~ 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
R. Recent alluvial deposits ~ 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees ~ 1 2 3
]0. Headcuts 0 1 2 ~.0
t t. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS
m or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
"Man-made at[cnes are not rated; see atscusstans to manual
R Avdrnlnnv lCnhtntal c ~ _~l
- ~ o.,
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stron
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ~ 1 2 3
I5. Water in channel and >48 hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or owin season Q 1 2. 3
16. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 l .S
I8. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack tines) 0 U.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? NO = 0 Yes = 1.5
lUYK 4/4
(` Rinlnerv lCnhtntal - ~_nl
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 ~
2l°. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians a O.S 1 l.S
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ~ O.S 1 1.S
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ~ 0.$ 1 l .S
28. L•on oxidizing bacterialfungus 0 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetlandplants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; ~$ L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and Zl locus on the presence of upland plants, uem tv focuses on me presence or aquazic or weuanu prams.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Jul 19-20, 20011 Pro'ect: 2242-E Latiutde:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:R0.R070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Gther: (e.g. Quad Name)

Stream is at least intermittent 34.0 "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic

if >_19 or perennial if ~0 quadrangle map
Channel Ll-C-04
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 16.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
1°. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel sttucture; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic Iloodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bazs or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel Q 1 Z 3
R. Recent alluvial deposits 0 j 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 j 2 3
lo. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls Q 0,$ j 1,$
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.$ 1 1.$
1.3 Second or greater order channel on ezistin USGS or MRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
NO = 0
Yes = 3
.Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolol:v (Subtotal =11.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
14. Groundwater flowJdischazge 0 1 2 3
I5. Water in channel and >4R hrs since rain; or
Water in channel- or owin season 0 1 2 3
I6. Leaf litter 1.5 1 D.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 O.S j 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.$ j 1.S
19. Hydric soils (redozimorphic features) present? NO = 0 Yes =1.$
lOYR 3/I
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 7.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel ~ 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.$
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) Q O,S j 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 0.5 1 1.$
2R. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 O.S 1 1.S
29~. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; ~$ 1. = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic of wetland plants,
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Jul 19-20, 2006 Pro'ect 2242-E Latitude:35.3602
Evaluator: Angelique Y.W. Crews and Taran Site: Huntersville, NC Longitude:R0.R070
B. Marion
Total Points: County: Mecklenburg Other: (e.g. Quad Name)
Stream is at least intermittent 29.0 "Derita, NC" 7.5-min. topographic
quadrangle map
if >_19 or perennial if ~0
Channel N1-C-Ol
A. Geomorpholoev (Subtotal = 13.0)
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1". Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structnre; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic 1loodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 ] 2 3
R. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 1 ? 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 ? 3
I I. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natutal valley or drainageway 0 O.S 1 1.5
1.3 Second or greater order channel on existin IJSGS or NRCS
m or other documented evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6.S)
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and >4R hrs since rain; or
Water in channel - or owin season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaf liner 1.$ 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 O.S 1 1.5
lR. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 l.S
19. Hydric sails (redoximorphic features} present? NO = 0 Yes = 1.S
C. Biolot<v (Subtotal = 9.5)
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 O.S 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.$
27. Filamentous algae; periphy[on 0 0.5 1 1.5
2R. Iron oxidizing bacteria/tungus 0 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; 013 E = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
° Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Soil was not identified, soil consisted of pebbles.
Observed IarEe tadpoles in channel.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 2242-E Young's PondlYoung's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
Applicant/Owner: New south Properties County: Mecklenburg
Invest` ator(s): An eli ue rews State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: BaCkQround
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a tential Problem Area? 1 and Yes No Plot 1D: Near A01-W-O1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S Gies Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus palustris Tree FACU+ 9.
2. Liquidambar Stytaciflua Tree FAC+ 16.
3. Acer rubmm Tree FAC 11.
4.Cornus florida Tree FACU 12.
S.Juniperus virginiana Tree FACU_ 13.
6.Quercus alba Tree FACU 14.
7.Ilex ambigua Shrub FAC- 15.
R. 16.
Percent of Dominant Speeies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Dominant plant species identified are 29°lo FAC or wetter plants.
Remarks:
Veeetation not indicative of a wetland.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial Photographs -Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other -Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment DeposiLS
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Depth of Surface Water: >12 (in.) -Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) `Water-Stained Leaves
~~ S
il S
D
_
o
urvey
ata
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_
Otiher (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
H.ydrology indicators not indicative of a wetland.
1of18

cnrr c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase}: Enon Sandy loam, 2'-S%a Slopes (EnB)
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, mixed thermic Ultic Hapludalfs Drainage Class: Well dYained

Field Observations
Confam Ma e? NO
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mantle Abundance/ Tezmre, Concretions,
Inches Horizon unsell Moist (Mansell Moist) S' e/Contrast S elute etc.
0-7 A lOYR 4/3 sand
7-11 B 1 l OYR S/6 sandy clay

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histol -
_Histic Epipedon -
_Sulfidic Odor -
_Aquic Moisture Regime -
-Reducing Conditions -
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydtic Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
Soil samaled as a lOYR 4/4.
Soil is not indicative of a wetland.
t7VT. Ti A >,rn 1'1T. Tii DMiN A'IT(1N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y0S No (Circle
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? YeS No
Remarks:
Not indicative of a wetland.
e.,»...,da w., uru rcerr. ~ro~
2 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
ApplicandOwner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s): An eli u r s State: N
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a tential Problem Area? t nd Yes No Plot ID: A01-W-O1
vtu r_>u m~•rrnty
Dotinant Plant S cies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
L Juncus effuses Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Rubus betulifolius Shrub FAC I0.
3. Typha latifolia Shrub OBL l 1.
4.Salix fragilis Tree FACIJ- 12.
5. 13.
(~, I a.
7, 15.
H. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Dominant plant species identified are 75%FAC or wetter plants.
Remarks:
Vegetation is indicative of a wetland.
u vnunr .nrv
X Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicator:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial Photographs _X_Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other -Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available !Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Depth of Surface Water: 12 (in.) _X_Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

12 _Water-Stained Leaves
(in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~~ Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) _
_FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Ex lain in Remacics)
Remarks:
Hydrology indicators indicative of a wetland.
3of18

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Moctaean Soils
Taxonomy (Subgroup): FfJle-lOQJ)ly, mixed, thermic Fhtvaquentec
Eutrochrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drdlned

Field Observations

Cunfum Mapped Type'? NO
P fil esc ~ i
Bepth Matrix Color
Inches Horizon unsell Moist
Motile Colors Motile Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist SizeJContrast Stntcture etc.
0-7 A 7.SYR 4/4 loam
7-14 B1 SYR 4/6 loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histol
_Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
R Gleyed or Low-Chrotna Colors
-Concretions
-High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
Soil sampled was a Gley 13/lOv mottled with l0Y 4/3.
foil sampled is indicative of a wetland.
WFTi.ANP T)F.TF.itMINATInN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Ftesent? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? YeS No
Hydric Soils Present? YeS No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampline point is indicative of a iurisdictional wetland area.

4 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-2Q 2006
Applicant/Owner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s): An eli ue C ws State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation}? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a tential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: A01-W-25-A

Dominant Plant S ies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S eies Stratum Indicator
L Liquidambar Styraciflua Tree FAC+ 9.
2. Taxodium dis[ichum Tree OBL 10.
3. Sntilax rotundifolia Vine FAC lL
4.Toxicodendron redicans Shrub FAC 12.
S.Ulmus seropna Tree FAC 13.
6. l4.
7. I5.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Dominant plant species identified are 100% FAC or wetter plants.
Remarks:
Vegetation is indicative of a wetland.
HYl)RnLnGY
_X -Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicator:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial Photographs --Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other _X_Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
De th of Surface Water: >I2 (in.) -Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

th to Free Water in Pit: >I2 (inJ
D _Water-Stained Leaves
ep ~~ Soil Surve
Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >I2 (in.) _
y
FAC-Neutral Test
!
Other (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hvdrolgv indicators indicative of a wetland.
Sofl8

cnii c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan Soils
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic
Eutrochrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drained

Field Observations
~
Confum Mapped Type. PIO
Protile Description:
Depth
Inch s
Depth
Ho izon Inches
Depth
orizon Inches H rizon
o-~ o-~ A o-~ A
7-14 B1 7-14 BI 7-14 B1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Hisml
_Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
-Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Sails List
-Listed on National Nydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
WFTi . A Nil ~F.TF.RMiN ATi(1N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YeS No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? YeS No
Remarks:
Samnlina point is indicative of a iutisdictional wetland area.
6 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
Applicant/Owner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s): An eli ue Crews State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community 1D: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a tential Problem Area? 1 and Yes No Plot ID: Near A01-W-26
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
L Phyllnstachys aurea Cira55 1~l/A 9.
2. Rubus betulifoliuz Shrub FAC 1~•
3. Satix fragilis Tree FACU- - t.
4.Morus ntbra Tree FAC 12.
S,Sambucnspubens Tree FACU 13.
~. la.
z t s.
s. 1 ~.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Remarks:
Do__minant plant species identified are 50% FAC or wetter plants.
HYDROLOGY
_X -Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicator:
Primary Indicator:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial Photographs _X_Sattsated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other -Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Depth of Surface Water: I~ (in.) _X_Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

De
th to Free Water in Pit: 1~ (in
) _Water-Stained Leaves
p
. Local Soil Surve
Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) -
y
FAC-Neutral Test
_
-Other (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydroloay indicators indicative of a wetland.
7 of 18

~nrl
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan Soils
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-toany, mixed, thermic FIuV4quentic
Eutrochrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drained

Field Observations

Confirm Mapped Type NO
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Depth
I ches Horizon Inches
Depth
Horizon Inches Horizon
o-~ A a~ A o-~ A
7-14 B1 7-14 B1 7-14 B1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histol -Concretions
_Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regirne .-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
„-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Rernarks
Remarks:
Soil sample was a Glev 13/lllgv
Soil sampled is indicative of a wetland.
W Ti Ti A Nil IIFTFii'MiN A'i'((lN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YeS No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? YeS No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? YeS No
Remarks:
SamplinE point is indicative of a iurisdictional wetland area.
8 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
Applicant/Owner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s): An eli ue Crews State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Trdnsect ID:
Is the area a tential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Sam le t. 3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S cies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S cies Stratum Indicator
L Frnxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 9.
2. Juglans Nigra Tree OBL 10.
3. Acer rubrun Tree FAC 11.
4.Tilia americans Tree FACU 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
R. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Remarks:
Dominant slant species identified are 75% FAC or wetter plants.
HYllROLOGY
_X -Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial. Photographs -Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other -Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
De th of Surface Water: >12 (in.) -Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches
De
th to Free Water in Pit: >12 (i
) -Water-Stained Leaves
p
n. Local Soil Surve
Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) -
y
_FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydrology indicators indicative of wetland.
9 of 18

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan Soils
Taxonomy (subgroup): Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic
Eutrochrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drained

Field observations

Confurtt Mapped Type? No
file s t
Depth Depth
Inches Horizon Inc s
Depth
Horizon Inches Horizon
o-~ a~ A a~ A
7-14 B1 7-14 Bl 7-14 B1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histol
_Histic Epipedon
_Stilfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_X Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colon
-Concretions
-High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
Soil sampled was a 7.51'It 3/2.
Soil sampled indicative of wetland.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? YeS No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Samplins point is indicative of a inris~lictional wetland area.

10 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
Applicant/Owner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s): An ell u Crews State: N
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a tential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: M1-W-01
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
I. Populus he[erophylla Tree OBL 9.
2. L.iquidambar Styracitlua Tree FAC+ l0.
3. Ilex ambigua Shrub FAC- l 1.
4. Rubus be[ulifolius Shnib FAC Iz.
S.Saliz fragilis Tree FACU- 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
R. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Dominant plant species identified are 6Il% FAC or wetter plants.
Remarks:
Vegetation indicative of a wetland.
HYDROLOGY
_X -Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicator:
Primary Indicator:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial Photographs _X_Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other -Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainage Pauems in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Depth of Surface Water: Q-2 (in.) -Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

th to Free Water in Pit: a-2 (in
De
) _Water-Stained Leaves
p
. Local Soil Surve
Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0-2 (in.} -
y
_FAC-Neutral `Test
-Other (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydrology indicators indicative of a wetland.
llofl8

c~rr c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan Soils
Taxonomy (Subgroup}: Filte-loamy, mixed, thermic FluvaqueKtic
Eutrochrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drained

Field Observations

Confum Mapped Type? Al0
rofil Des i C
Depth Depth
I ch s Horizon Inches
Depth
Horizon Inches Horizon
o-~ a o-~ A o-~ a
7-14 B1 7-14 Bl 7-14 B1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histol
_Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
-Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Exp]ain in Remarks
Remarks:
Soil sampled was a Glev 2 3/106 mottled with Glev
Soil sampled indicative of a wetland.
1 Q/lOv
WFTi.ANil i1FTF.RMiNATi(lN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? YeS No
N
W
d? Y
l
Hydric Soils Present? y~ No o
es
et
an
Is this Sampling Point Within a
Remarks:
Sampling point is indicative of a iurisdictional wetland area.
..,M,,.w v). y.. ...... ..,,
12 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
Project/Site: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
Applicant/Owner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s): An eli ue Crews State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: baekaround
[s the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation}? Yes No Transect ID:
[s the area a tential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Near A-002
VF.f F.TATi(1N
Dominant Plant S ties Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ties Stratum Indicator
I. Ater rubrum Tree FAC 9.
2. Juniperus virginiana Tree FACU- I0.
3. Liquidambar Styraciflua Tree FAC+ t t.
4.Carya ovata Tree FACU 12-
S.Quercus marilandica Tree N/A 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
x. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Dominant plant species identified are 50% FAC or wetter plants.
Remarks:
HYDRnLnGY
_X -Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial Photographs ^Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other -Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Depth of Surface Water: >I2 (in.) -Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >I2 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Surve
Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >IZ (in.) -
y
_FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydroloev indicators not indicative of a wetland.
13 of 18

C(lii C
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan Soils
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ffne-10[illty, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentfc
Eutrochrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drained

Field Observations
.,
Confirm Mapped Type. NO
Profile Description:
Depth
Inches
Depth
Horizon Inches
Depth
Horizon Inches Horizon
o-~ A o-~ A o-~ A
7-14 B1 7-14 B1 7-14 B1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histol
Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colony
-Concretions
-High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-,Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
Soil sampled was a SYR 4/6
WT. Ti A Nil ilTi TF>~2MiN ATi(1N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YeS No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? YeS No
Remarks:
Sampling point is not indicative of a wetland.
14 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
ApplicandOwner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s}: A eli ue Crews State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: twe land
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
[s the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: A-017
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ties Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ties Stratum Indicator
1. Toxicodendron radicans Shrub FAC 9.
2. Ulmus rubs Tree FAC 10.
3. Junipems virginiana Tree FACU- 11.
4.Acer rubrum Tree FAC l2.
S.Wisteriamacrostachya Shrub FACW 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
x. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Dominant plant species identified are 80% FAC or wetter plants.
Remarks:
Vesetation indicative of a wetland.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Gauge _Inundated
Aerial Photographs _Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other _X_Wa[er Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-.Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Depth of Surface Water: >12 (in.) _X_Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >I2 (in.) _Water-Stained Leaves
~~ S
il S
D
_
o
urvey
ata
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.} FAC-Neutral Test
_
-Other (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hvdroloev indicators indicative of a wetland.
15 of 18

cnrr c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan Soils
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fiae•loamy, mired, thermic Fluvaquenttc
Eutrochrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drained

Field Observations

Confirm Mapped Type. NO
Profile Description:
Depth Depth
Inches Horizon Inches
Depth
Horizon Inc Horizon
0-7 A 0-7 A 0-7 A
7-14 B1 7-14 B1 7-14 B1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histol
Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
-Concretions
-High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
Soil sampled as a lOYR 3/2 mottled with a Gle
Soil sampled is indicative of a wetland.
v 2 4/SPB
WGTi ANrI ilFTF1:MiNATinN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YeS No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? y~ No
Remarks:
Sam lip int is indicative of a 'urisdictional wetland area.
. _a._..... w., urr is err. ~ro~
16 of 18

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecdSite: 2242-E Young's Pond/Young's Mill Date: July 19-20, 2006
Applicant/Owner: New South Properties County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator(s): An eli ue Crews State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
[s the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Near A-002
VRGRTATi(1N
Dominant Plant S ies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar Styraciflua Tree FAC+ 9.
2. Quercus nigra Tree FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum Tree FAC I1.
4. Ulmus rubs Tree FAC 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7, 15.
R. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are O$L, FACW, or FAC
Dominant plant species identified are 100% FAC or wetter plants.
Remarks:
Vegetation is indicative of a wetland.
Hvnu~r,ncv
_X -Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicator:
Gauge -Inundated
Aerial Photographs Saturated in Upper 12 inches
_X_Other _X_Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Depth of Surface Water: >I2 (in.) _X_Oxidized Root channels in Upper 12 inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) -
_FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
HvdroloEV indicators indicative of a wetland.
17 of 18

SOILS
Map Uni[ Name
(Series and Phase): Monacan Soils
Taxonomy (subgroup): Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic
Eutmchrepts Drainage Class: Poorly drained

Field Observations

Confum Mapped Type? 110
Profile Description:
Depth Depth
Inches Horizon Inches
Depth
H rizo I hes Horizon
0-7 a o-~ A o-~ a
7-14 Bl 7-14 B1 7-14 B1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histol
_Histic Epipedon
_Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
-Reducing Conditions
_X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
-Concretions
-High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
Soil sampled as a lOYR 4/4 mottled with a Glev
Soil sampled is indicative of a wetland.
2 615PB
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? YeS No
Hydric Soils Present? y~ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
SamplinE point is indicative of a iurisdictional wetland area.
AppnweJ Dy H(jUJAI;L• LYL
18 of 18

J
l
IPSTREAIf ELEVA 7l[7~
•! '~r~

~ i
D11 YIR47J~6N4 EZ.EI+RT101~
[- a__ r ~
~ ~~ v.rwira+.a~e
BFIIO~E BoLLrto~s nG. "~+""'
~w
.u..s.
I~FI9,-S E ~i

Q
1
_~
e~\,P
^ V~w7^~~S
~~ ~~~
~/1~7~ IM~RpY/1L QiY.
~~aaarwas
Jr t~t0
~IaALE ~ff~l11~~OM r,,M G~

TREE sAVE AREA CALCUTAnONS PERCENT OF roTAL
NET AREA (89.51 AC)
AREA A : 20,763 SOFT. (0.48 AC) 0.51%
AREA B • 47,007 SO.Fi. (1.08 AC) 1.21%
AREA C = 5,559 SO.Fi (0.13 ACJ 0.15%
AAEA D = 104,996 SOFT. (2.41 AC) 2.69%
AAEh E • 49,6J9 SO.fL (134 AC) 1.27%
AAEA F = 2i,60B SOFT. (0.56 AC) 0.6JX
AAEA C = 18,253 SOFT. (0.44 AC) 0.49%
AAEA N = 5,159 SOFT, (0.12 AC) 0.17%
AREA I • 22,179 SOFT. (0.51 AC) 0.57%
AREA J = 1,671 $O.FT. (0.04 AC) 0.04%
AREA N = 2,373 $O.FT, (0.05 AC) 0.06%
AREAL = 58,7J4 SOFT. (1.34 AC) 1.50%
AREA M • 16,394 SO.Ff. (0.J8 AC) 0.42%
AREA N = 4,OB9 SOFT. (0.09 AC) 0.10%
AREA 0 = 9,989 SOR. (0.2J AC) 0.26%
AREA P = 11,910 SO.Fi. (0.27 AC) 0.30%
AREA 0 = 2,911 SO.fT. (0.07 AC) 0.08%
AAEA R = 10,097 SOFT. (0.23 AC) 0.26%
TOTAL = 416,891 SO.Fi (9.57 AC) 10.70%
TREE SAVE CALCULAnCNS
GRCSS TOTAL SITE AAEA • 90.73 AC.
DEWCAIEU AREAS:
~ANITAQY ~NER EeaMEU7 - 122 AC
TOTAL DEDCATED AREAS • 1.22 AC.
NE7 AREA • 90.73 - 1.22 =89.51 AC.
IAEE SAVE REWIRED (10X) = 8.95 AC.
R LADED - 951 AC
V ~e~~ta~Road
OP. ORM D NAGE
EME (TYP.)
A ~
y Jrn1~ r
J V
rtr
7
9~ae~MapleAlcTRF~TSCLD Wt.at
-5~ Np NL>IUGnit~ , n \
E611P~y'"'~~~~ STREET INTERSECTIONS PER
,T ~ CLDS
4' PIANTING 5 RIP (TYP.)
~ ~ 4~ CONC. 5 EWALK (ttP )
w'°~•
~ OP, 2' VAL GUTTER TYP
~., C 5 10.178
TREE SAYE P 0 - ~ 59
PERCENT TREE SAVE FRONDED = 9.57/89.51 = 10.70% ,a*'•"
.o
~ v~
n ..:6~~
I
r ~ ;a,•
z
m :. tid
,:-::,
' I
"'~~. ~'~., 111;\,
\\111 ~1~~111
1~1. A
`ll ~ 111
`y~a
m
m b
1
x f
~ o
~, a~
_ ~ C
-m4
f~
N
O ,~~
A N.... I
C)
Z _-
wTl C
~~5 ~ ~ o
Z _
I STORM WATER PROTECTION ELEVATIONS (SWPE)
S MINIMUM FlNISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS (FFE) TABLE FOA THOSE
I LOTS WHERE 100+1 BUILDING RESTRICTION FLOODUNE ENC ROACH ES
LOT 22=764.00 LOT 74=778.00 LOT 85=770.00 LOT 98.7fi7.75 LOT 41=755.25
( L07 27=763.00 L01 75=778.00 LOi 86=768.00 LOT 97=763.75 LOT 42=755.25
LOT 2h762.50 LOT 76=775.OD LOT B7=767.50 LOT 98=764.50 LOT 43=757.00
LOT 25:76200 LOT 77=775.00 LOT 88=766.75 LOT 99=766.75 LOT M=760.50
LOT 26=760.50 LOT 78=775.00 LOT 69=764.50 LOT 100:767.50
q
LOT 27=759.75 LOT 79=775.OD lOT 90=763.75 LOT 101=768.00
5
LOT 28=758.75 LOT 80=774.00 LOT 91=762J5 LOT 106=772.50
LOT 29x758.50 LOT 81=773.00 LOT 92=760.50 LOT 107=772.50
LOT 30:755.50 LOT 82=773.00 LOT 93=761.50 LOT 5fi=766.75
75 =
LOT 32=755.75 LOT B4=771.00 LDT 95=762. LOT 766.75
58
Q
•~
2 ,,,,. 5} , ~ w .~ ~~ ~*
~ ~ - g~~f
~ NvJ /*~
e; w,~/~ 9N, ~49~y~6q~m~3
~ ,~ , ~I ;„ ~.~~ .~
;~~
~. ,v ~^ 11/,.r ~n
f.OAfMON ;
rrusencE I ~ 'I ~..
~~ I I pl r. `.~
SIbNSV.T'1'~
ao1 M:. I I a~ I
I I ': li I
., ~ I I i li I
II .~, II
~Y~ liat~
~~
cnce 1~~ i
ARCAD ~
I. ~ 1
I!iI
~ I I :I I'
i_ I I,~ II ' 1: Ir
•QQ III I
!Y~Ki ill:' I F
~i .I: Il)
ghl°~~, ,
XIII.
it
iP 037-171-11 '
N/F
BELNW0. C. FOSTER /
O8. 4578 PC. 41] Q
TEMP. TREE PROTECTION (ttP.) /;
CLDS. 40.12
100+1 BUILDING RESTRICTION FLOODLIN '(r~rP.)
SEE SHEETS C-3.18 TO C-3.2B FOR '
DETAILED fL00D STUDY INFORMATION %SEE
SHEETS C-3.0 TO C-3.7 FOR DEF fA~fEb NC
SEE MIN FFE TABLE THIS SHFjd',
~' o

i~I 077-171-13
N/F

~~
;7
~ u7eP~cii1
0
O
O
>P az7-m-le
N/f
FAANKUN 0.k 7XFAE51. F. LVSK
p0, 1578 PC. 41 f
O
DRTYEWAY
NEO
~~
~10~
;SASE Z
lP 017_171-38
NfF
GE1U10 ALLEN BROYM
DB. IOB59 FG. 188
Y8.
~ / ue
B,ac~Maele Ave`Y
,~
R 017-171-04
N
NEW70N o wlurAls
k JICEULFNE WILLMMB
OB. 11801 PG. 989
OEVEIOPER TO MAINTAIN INGRESS/EGRESS
TO EX. PROPERTY OWNERS. ALL E%.
UTILITIES TO BE RELOCATED.
NEA10ALE SV8DN510N
PNASE 1
TO BE OFSIGNW ANO
aERNRiEO Br G1NERs
m az7-m-a
N/f
RosA o. BROwN
D8. 2110 PG. 19B
TO BE A&VNODNED
O `/
m az7-v1-37
N/F
AO6A A 0. BROWN
k GERAlD A BRONN
OB. 7120 PC. 198

07-1248

De'"`°~ad
Ro
i

VI'~~ ~ ~ 2~~~
'~~ ~ - ~r~ I tR 4~UALIi'y
~+~RAF;~e :~;il~sT1.4Fq;ATERBRgNCh
0
N4IE:
1.) ALL DESIGNATED TREE SAVE AREAS ARE
WITHIN THE IJMITS OF THE PROJECT
COMMON OPEN SPACE.
2J COMMON OPEN SPACE = 11,84 AC.
OR 13.18% TOTAL PROPERtt.
3.) FOR ADDITIONAL ROADWAY ANO STORM
DRAINAGE INFORMATION -SEE SHEETS
C-5.0 THRU C-6.6.
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IX IZ6E )
1 tooh • 100 f4
~~~~
W zq'
~~~ ~

J
~
.

o V•
.~
~
17 N
.I U
~ z a ~
`' ~ N
a ~+
vl o '~ ~ U
z
a ~
~ a ,
mbF
~ U oa ~°,

e OH yR
i; ~ k7 U '

F-1 ~
U
I
N
O N
., ~
TIN
w
G~ 4w~'o
~ z
a ~~
rr^^I 3
w g "•
w
I
'o4~~>A ~+''~ry'-:
2; gu t9 B
y, 19885 '0.e
SHEET
C-2.1

LEGEND
~;~~
- - - ;~ ^~
_ ~ ®maaerm.~,
_ .~ ® ~~e~
~ umvwvw •..

~~ m.aama
~ ~ -~
~~ ,~PR~C110NINDCYWNf4N0,E3 ~ ~
e. coxm~Taaroaev.mffPxorecmutsaa°
woxeurMOeKrPaauroa°xsnrte°umaroee ~, 1
____ 1
crvmPteamcoxraaunra
~ rrore
`
arernnoxePOnnaa7eawtororwK.vur
x wa rnEroirxreroxoauomaoo p{rpTelnTUllixe
OkYEl01FN0911l610eELLL0e 7e/011NONF
'
\ \ ~
V ~ -•.
I
JfdhAaEaY~FfIM01.C0.VMACfMr0U1EFATPEIE
cwndrnwF onwxewxvn7+eoemraar~n+Ar carerawrav, ne+nere,rarwPP >xuff M'~ibn 8h°~°' ~
ueemrt{n,~c~avEnirarire~,rarr.rum
a4woweemr,cowroewaPrUncwaneeans ne,wIDVmxnelml~nrv~anl~cm
aPrm+w~uonPriuPnaurx.xPC>:nNT ne~i0.'W ~' I
aemaa
r7aaiex0.ltncn.re0em,
a ravuta,emeraoro~oeexmwawr~rr.rne ~ ~~
.
.
~mtnoxumaw raxnrrncerwaT¢xa a~arPUOPZrtwmwn~xwar.N~P9~N100.RP'P~.V i I ~ I I •0
naautuEUaxcar~pu,or ~rn,Tw~aawaPart°rrw~ouraemvu
BE NliuimnTEErla l,IErPE
1aeN / ~ \
I 1
i. EF ~liaA1/D+.I i°IFNOp°I aONIRa1N10
n I \ ~
~ \ \
e. ~e wmwvmeaxrwertwvae ~
i
I / \ ~-% \
~ °IalaT0.PU0.'iNFD1Y°NIee1EBCN \ 1 ~~-~~ \ ~ rmelMMN
I ~
0. LrAIa.PEaWI10BBRRNPA./ROJILW11E0leItD I I I Ltl 11
~
I .
'
~~~
~ ~ ~; ,-
1 -
~ `
~
~`
' ~l
r
01VDIN0WpNPF1.LE1Bt
p1
PIItlIM.VRai®PIIOPeIeIY UMIi110ealilnG I ~
~ , ~
~'f ii~~
~
li ii
a. ncwvemxenorw,raa aegnnaaer+roa ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~-- ~ ~ ~.y Nt~~~~ l~i~~,~,~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
waauuaam,wmaweronaolr7wmwr. enw7. 1 wa _- ~ '-``~ P}} ~ ~~ ] l
i rnRrnouwuwvxnrawrzsueurv ~ xnaa,t~ ~ -_ ' V __ -~_ ~~ ~ - i~il~(~~~ ~ ~L~I _ ~ VIII~,1~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1. ~
oMwalPerrennwoworaa~rutnESwnfn 1 ~ , IY/I~~ ~- rtwioxo uo
xueEnEweworoeuNreoe+a,lx,w \ I ~ ua ~ mPnnecroem~.~---' ~{~ {~ a l~. J~~,~.~Il~~.~ ~~,,~1 l~ ~R~ I
u+aerowwriracucunnaxe. ~ ~ mn+ur ~ ~l ~ x7, w
1 we ~rsrOreaer ~ li ~ l~;~i,ar ~ ~ ~ ~ Fi I I ~ w,c n7a
STORMORAINAOETABLE: ~ can ,1~w~rr ~ i.~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ---. ( ~ - I~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~m~~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~
h f ~~i~" ~ ~~ ,surer 111 f ~.-
- - ~, r ,. b ~, au ,.. ~ ,- r'~*rjI III i ~~`,1 ~ ~ ~~~,~~~ I ~ I
,~ w,+ ma w, r . w e . .+. ~+ ra ra 1~ 11 ~~~I ~ ~~ ~yl / l , ~ ~ L i ~ ~ ~ V ~
,., _ _ a, r ,. ~ ... oN ... i r N! I ~ ~ ~_ ~ Ills I ~ _ ~ - }--easoler ~ .f' / T"~ ~,
w m+ m.. wu . . ~. w . „ra w+ ..k ~ ~- ~-' "~ r- ,.,~ I~~~~~- ~ ~ ~1 ' 1 ~ ~-+ ac '""- '"°" ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ atoms
a. iw w n . ,r w . aw rartM / / ~ ~~~~'~ 1 1a /~il7y~r I ~~` ~ ~~~~~. _ '8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
,P ra - a+ r . ,r p . ,x. a„ y pd.g. ~p, / ~~ }w.e .. ry1~P~~ 1 . \
~~ m m n v . ,. o . an ae erowMeei - ' 1 "° ~ ~ ~lV~~~ ~~ `~~ ~ 1
~.
„ ,,, m, m+ w a ,. w . u.. an °~YgNP° / S @l~ l "' ~ '~_~~ ~ ~ + uaser
POee)
n m+ ma m r . ,r b . ,m are FAmE ~ 6 / / /~ ~~ ~ --_Y'%_ _ _~ ~ ~~ I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
BlOYxlltlNe N77LNNmk ~ ~
nU n0+ ,ee, r X I! .D . .1n aM,
1~'~, ar -,~. ~•~ r7aeaP~__I rte, ' _ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
,r w mr m+ ,t a ,. .r a ,w ate ~ ~ / # ~ fir' \1Yllarawna +-~ ++n~ \ \ I \ ~~, I .ri
u
exwawnr h. - InmPap~~
, _ ~~~'''
a. g ~ ~ maawl ~ •__ ~ ~ ~~~ t mer 7wis~ ~.
n m., ru mn • a m s . un an ~ F / ~ Jt.-~ --"-~ ~ `~_ I ~' .~ ~ ~i
alr ,r+ - m n s n e . am ut. b ~ ~ /
ura ma m ,r+ ~. . . mr . aw awa / ~ - i ,. R\~ r'~ ~ ro~lf ~ ' ~'.i 19 ~- - _ I` - ~~ ~~ _~ ,~ { I ~d _ ~ . ` _ ~®~ ! ~ ® 90 /~
- _ ~ 1 nurrPaarm ~. ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ i '7 i y_z~ ~c ~'~ • ~ _ - ~ 2aj
o~ xa m r . m w . ,a. auo r• " ---"AaraMO,POe~- I~~ -xrorwuT ~~ /18 ~- .-~ ~ . -~ ~.~,~ _~ + .r- - ~ I = 1
ti i ~(~Q.~(~
roe m, m. a . ,. n . .m. as s.. mri~m~inn.n >a~ I ~~n i' / y' { . ~f ns -® - -~' ~-'~:~~ -~ ~ ~- ~~ ` 8 ~g ~ i ~ .
~,
m, _ m. . . . o . ,wP, ~ _ ,r6waPam.e~. ~_ /~~ !~~f17 -' ~~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ /I ~~ / / / Nel>w / '~ %~_ --~ ! ---- 1
m. ,r. mr w , . ne . om an rrv - ~' ~~ ~aJ ~ ~
m. rIM m+l r . . O . a>i ma rpP YXa1F. RE 111EEr1A1 p i/' "7"~ ' , ~ j 1 ! ~ ,'. ~~1~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~'~ ~ 32 ~ / C / ~~// ~~ ~ ~ naeT,f~
m+ nu mP rPU.PamPSrwonw+m.euwe..e. o. _ l/ ~ ~ /~ ~~ / (~~ ~ ~~.. I ~ I I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ nrt.~A ~ ~~~ 70
mw.ou~a ,p7 of
_ ~ L
_/ ~~.~ ~ ! i. ~ ~>t ~ /,~. ~ / J ~ 1 ~ + ~~°ra`e~ ~'' ~~ ~ ~m'.y""' n I ~ ~y~ ~ Not~wfs
i J
ns ,e+ - m • r x +n . Prn an rr ~ -~ ~ / ~ ~ r ~ 1 ~ ~f ~ / creak ~ ' ~ / ~ / ~28~ 1
m, >,., m+ ,. ~ ,,.. ~„ ~' _-~i _i~_ / I I I~J u~`ioneA~ I .Ij~~l I ~ ! i' 31 . , / ~~ I 1 ~"~ ~
~r ~ / ,
our ,u w m » . • ru . am Pew - -~ ~ 7 I ~~ ~ ~ ~ r~ I I ~ ~~3~~5/ / /
„~ , y ,eue~ f © ~
rronoooer,.m~u~uam ~ '~, I Y ~ /I,. ~ / ~e~Ai / ~ ~ / ~ / '
~, ~ ~ ! / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J
ar m, _ m ~. .~ In ar _ertenecu°ur,au ~ ~ ~ 38 /
~. m" ,~, >v ~ . r ~ . +„~ ~. --- ~-''~' ~~ ~ I I ,l~~r~ ; t,, 1 y I / ~ X30 ~~~ ~ ~„~
a. ,w ,., ,., . . ~. ~ . ar. w, _ .~~bG~ / ~ ` ~ iv ~~ i ~m_ X ape. .__ ~ ~ I~ raaoeP ~ ~~ tom'
m, ,R, ~, ,. ~ . ,.. ~ I 37 ~ I / ~I ~ ~ ~,r- ~~a ~
an m+ 1M+ nU n • M w . tw mr / ~ ~ I/ ~ ~ ~ 1a. 39 ~ S ~(S 707 ~ Yafi e1~ 1 ~ I ~ ~,,~,1 ~ ~ PwIRR Onma I
/ y ~\ L'J I / ormnw
,u m, m+ . . ,. ,o w. >« ~ / ~- ~'l~ / ~ ~,.~'. -- '~/ ~ /~ a I ~' I ~~ ~ew.sewrx
~~...JE '11' ,~, , ta,ao~P ~ '~ / ~ 48 Itan4eP y I comae eeown
+.+ ~+ m rP . v .» . rn owr rn ~ I -"~~}"fi flt ~ 11..~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ P' ~~ ~ i / ! ~ I OraMwnKpergm
,ea m, m, . . .. w . +w ew •r ~ P""~ nm ~ e ~ / ~' ~ ~ I / 7 ~ ~ / NmrPam.¢
ew m. ma ».e nr . r ea . ew rus ;' ~~' ~ i i~ ~ ~~~ i' / v / ~i~g~,/ / ~ ~ ~
t~ // i'~'' ~ ~~. a I' ~ i 45' i 1 7awa// ~ ' i~~ ~ w.nrortonma ~ U ~
/
v / , oo i
~ i i
/~~ i i~ ~ '~ II ~ ~ ~~ ~~II 43 ~ 1 eraar ~ i !/ ~ ~ ~i l ow i~~tael .y$' ~ ~t~~~,^ 4
i i~ ~ 1 I ~ ~" i,... ~ l
,' /~ oranae~ixo:r Pain. ~` (a~ 1//, u,eev~~ ' '~ ~ ~~ +~ I ~ ~ ~ V
,waraokrwrrnoue, ~ ~~ ~~~ A,y l ,a~,n ~ , ro ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ IJ f!
rxa , .J l_
I ~ / ~ ~ / wworanvrs , ~ ~ ~ ~
NOTE: !I ~ ~ ~ ,/ ~ ~ / ne°aersu~car~amcwn°7 I i ~ ~' ~)~~~~
~il?~Fj~S ~~IC~QU~L~
~00lelE GT°16VRleN1ET0 BF IN19/1®PBta1°I eiea0. / / ~ ~ / L ewa: L1 ea6116e W61R
mioaaseuraramecmrsrmcua '~"--- ~~ ~ ~ uewwmnhlarom 1 i A,iI r/
~ ,~ n,~t~;~~~,~~pg~~
affoeru~raar. / ,~ i ~ PbWaramwy ~
~ALLPIPFeNa1, 0PIFBe CµeewPe. j ~ 1 , /'"( 1 \~~ \ \~ ~ 1i ~ e p0
i ~
/ /~ I e qV ~li..LWm~0.Y1N ~.
g I i 1 -vas-
~ am 4"~-`>7 0 6tl f00' 400"
,~.~
~ `~ ~
~ ~~a~
~~i~~
r
(n J
Q J U
Z
aZ~
Jao
N
Q =
c O}
GRADING
PLAN
~~
epk
GRO
r ~i ~!~
;Y•
ran
,~
~/Wls~
~~
$$~
1~
d~
>~~
SSW
GIa+, B/
ssw
q»ake0
~n1
~~•~~-0~
numbn
08018
6MatNuner.
L3.0
aeerua7l

~ LOT 59 ~
LOT 89 `Y
-~-~ ~ ' EX.42"FES ROP. DITCH
~ ~ I
ass EXIST. ~,
ma ~ I ~ SUBDNISION s
/ N ~
LOT 90 m ~ • ~ EXIST. EPHEMERAL
LOT 58 / I • o STREAM
~C /
~ ~
ti ~
/~ ~ , .
1~ ( EXIST. INTERMITTENT
I ~ STREAMS
~ ~ j6 ~
1 ~
~ ~
~ CRLASS 10RIP6'RAP PAD
LOT 91 I ~ LOT 55
~ ~
N ~ ' .. / GRADING U TS (TYP.) ^~~
PROP. SAN. SWR. LIME Pce ; ,,
LOY 56
nP' ~ PCB `~',~ n n
LOTLIN k
~ ~ , .. ~6 n
Ex. H N , FE ~6o PROP. 54" R o
\ a ~ ~ n
EXIST. SAN. SWR. LI~(E ~ ~~
. ~
• ~ ss~ \~, ~ ;i~ LOT 57 ^^w
. PS~I~H ~
' • o `~ 'ce PROP. 30'X18'Xi'
~o, ~'~ '~ ~ ~ CLASS 1 RIP RAP P ~
~ ~ i 35 0 DISTURBANCE /
EXIST. PERENNIALS EAM ' '.TO INTERMI N STREAM ~ / /
SUBJECT TO 35' S~.LM. ~. ~ \ Aso /' ~° ~ /
BUFFER PER MECKLENB RG 1
~' ~
COUNIY~IS
\ \ "" ~ `~
\ •• \ •. ~ J
SS. ~~0w
. ' . ~ .\ .' ~ ~ ~ LOT 46
15' UPLAND ZONE (TYP.) ~ ' , ~ ' '~
' . Qi 1 O ~~0
20' UNDISTURBED 75s ~~ LOT 45
SIREAMSIDE ZONE (TYP.) ~ ~ ~se 5 ~~ ,' ~ ~'' I
' 6° ~ ,66
~o ~~ ~ 6 ~y
~ N 1 ~ ~6 ~
EXIST.INTERMIITENT ~ I I ss
. ~ 1~
STREAM -~
'I~iYTlat~L.E Sc r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,In ~,,, a~T"_
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
07`12~g
Wt9
J~ ~
q,
W
Z
3

v~ ~'
C ~~
C CI
=U~
~z
.~
y ~z
~N~
~ L
~~
f6 C:
C~
fn ~
~~x
o°
s
fA ~ c
W J G
S

~ v
~ N
. ~
a
~z ~;N
'ti
~ q v U
~~z
„°
~ ~~~
o
vU 0 ro
~ ~'wU

n

w c Q p U
II Q O
;~ ~, ~
~ ...~ \
~ ~ ~~
~
C~ ~
GRAPHIC SCALE q
b 0 74 W ~

(~~') +~
C
1 iaoh . ~ 1t
i~
a
e
~~i
~ _=
r
~~
• - -- ----- •-- r ,. .-~

i 1
PssMH ` PROP. DITCH
Aga ,~s PCB : ~•' ~- _..,. 1
/ 15" RCP _ =DE~P•~
~8e ~~~ , ~ ~ _ _~ 196
~~
~~.~ / ~
~G~ ~
/, C.O.S. ~ ~'~~/ ~ ~~ ~ ` /
i ~' / ~ \\ ~/ CP
~ / ~$ R
/~ ~ ~ ~ DI, ///
/" ~ \ / /
a ~ ~
0
~ ^ ~/ ~ ~ ~
~~ 181 N i ~
~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
~ i
^~~ ~ ~ ySc'L-D~~j~ ~~ 197
~ EXIST. ~~IN6RPHIE ~
180 \ ~ WETLAND
7 I ~ !~
L + $
J ~

W 5
Z
a
Wu,i
v c'
C N;
C ~
~ N
U~
on Z
~~
y
~~
4~~°
Q ~ L
_ L
l6 c-;
N =f
~"
Gi
~~x
H °s
~~
W~~
~~ ~ / ;~~ GRADING LIMITS {TYP.)
H ~pS1.INE
1~'',
PROP. SAN. SWR. LINE
PSSMH
1`
1~~
11,E 179
I ~ f ~ 10' PROTECTIVE
~ UNDISTURBED BU ER
I ~
i
I i
~ , \ ~_ / / i ^~~, 198
~ / 175
~ - ._ ~ i ~ 20,082SF, 0. 61AC
~ ~ UNDESTURBE PRESERVED
_----_/
784
176
178 177 ~~ /~
/.
~~2
~~..~
I
1,023SF, 0.0 3AC
REMOVED FO BUILDING
PADS
AUTUMN PARK CT

_.
=fig ``
~ ~!
°o
N
o U~~o
.~ r~ ~ N
a ~ N
•~
~ b v U
~~z
a,°
~
~ ~b~
~ • o
,
'~ U o ~
~ ~'WU

r
~n

n

W L v ~ r,
r
II Q o
u
^
'
..
l
.
. .+~ H
o~ ~°
GRAPHIC SCALE ~ Q

a o m a
~~~')
1 faoh ~ ~ !t
15
3
~~
~" v`