20071810 Ver 1_401 Application_20071007

O T- 1 8 1 '~ ~-
PAID
October 24, 2007
D ~~~" V
Ms. Cyndi Karoly D
NCDENR/NCDWQ OCj 2 6 Z007
Wetlands/401 Water Quality Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center r~ °E"~s r~,~ ~~.~.~,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 rA1>SRBRq~k
RE: Pre-Construction Notification Form -Section 404/401 - NWP 39
Griffith Lakes Project, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find enclosed seven copies of our PCN package for the subject property. We have
included the following supporting data:
• PCN form,
• Vicinity (1), USGS (2), soil (3), site plan (4), impacts (5), mitigation (6), and storm water
BMP (7) maps,
• Jurisdiction Determination Form for impact areas,
• USAGE Stream Quality Assessment Forms for mitigation areas,
• Wetland Delineation Forms for impact area,
• NCDWQ Stream Identification Form for impact reach,
• And photolog of impact areas.
The goal of the project is to provide a mixed use development in an already urbanized area of the
City of Charlotte. The project is also designed to achieve this purpose while preserving much of
the natural systems on the site including preservation of streams, ponds, and open spaces.
The same information has been submitted to the Asheville Regulatory Office of the US Army
Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Aaron S. Earley, PE
Project Manager
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • 1430 South Mint Street • Unit 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
OT-1810
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(lf any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing ~ p
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: 39
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 detailsD chgcJ~l}e~~~
II. Applicant Information ~~~ ~~25 ~u D
OCT 2 6 20Q7
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Jim Griffith p~NR - WATER QUALITY
'~'' "186,10 STnGtuW~T6RBrlANCN
Mailing Address: Griffith Equities LLC
1944 Brunswick Ave
Charlotte, NC 28207
Telephone Number: 704-332-7173 Fax Number: 704-332-7176
E-mail Address: jgrlffith(a~ecgriffith.us
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: Aaron Earley PE
Company Affiliation:_ Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mailing Address: 1430 South Mint Street Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone Number: 704-332-7754 Fax Number: 704-332-3306
E-mail Address: aearle~na,wildlandsinc.com
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 10

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map (Figure 1) clearly showing the location of the property with respect to
local landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan (Figure4)
showing property boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both
the vicinity map and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all
buildings, impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and
plans should include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map (Figure 2) and NRCS Soil
Survey (Figure 3) with the property boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be
included at the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is clearly defined. For
administrative and distribution purposes, the USACE requires information to be submitted on
sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format; however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size.
DWQ prefers full-size construction drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-
size plans. If full-size plans are reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible,
the applicant will be informed that the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps
are provided.
1. Name of project: Griffith Lakes Development
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 04306202
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
From I-77 take the Harris Blvd Exit. Travel East on Harris Blvd Turn Ri t onto
Henderson Rd. Gravel road access to the property on the left.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.325053 °N 80.817722 °W
6. Property size (acres): 357.81 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Mallard Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin River
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:_ The 357.81 acre site is currently undeveloped and is
primarily forested and also includes 3 ponds (23.05 acres total). There is an existing power
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 10

line cut and a sewer line running throe the property and various dirt roads throughout. The
area surrounding the property is dominated by both commercial and residential development
The planned North Transit line will run along the western edge of theproperty,
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project is a mixed use development with two primary components. The first is a mixed
residential development of relatively low densit~(3.4 du/acre). The second is a mixed use
development with a strong commercial base (about 90,000 square feet) and a hi intensity
residential (app.1700 units) located in close proximity to the City of Charlotte's proposed
commuter rail transit station on the North Corridor. The proposed project also includes 152.7
acres of open space. An easement for the future eenway along Mallard Creek will be
provided to the City of Charlotte as part of the project. Standard construction equipment will
be used for the development.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose is to provide a mixed use
development in an already urbanized area of the City of Charlotte. The .project is also
designed to achieve this purpose while preserving much of the natural svstems on the site
including preservation of streams, ponds, and open spaces.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A jurisdictional determination was submitted as part of this current PCN submittal No previous
JD or permit requests have been made.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permit requests are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 10

listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
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 proposed project has been
redesi>;ned multiple times to minimize the impacts to the wetlands open water and stream
channels on the site. Under the current desisn there are three road crossings impactins?
waters on the site. All of the crossings are required due to the City of Charlotte's
requirement for road connectivity within the development Additionally one of the crossing
is dictated by an existin>; power line and is therefore unavoidable The impacts include 230
LF of stream, 0.298 acres of open water and 0.132 acres of wetlands The areas being
impacted are shown in detail on the attached plans and Figure 5
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flnndin¢
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh 100-yeaz Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) ,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (lineaz feet)
Road crossing -
1 W constrained by utility Scrub shrub NO 100 LF 0.066
line
2W Dam Slope Extension
for Road Crossing Scrub Shrub NO 100 LF 0.066
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.132
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 2.56 acres
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
must be included. To calculate acreas?e_ multiply length X w;dth_ then rhv;~le by 4~ Sin
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on map) Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)

1 S UT Permanent road perennial 3 feet 230 0.016
crossing

Updated 11 /1 /2005
Page 4 of 10

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 230 0.016
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts in clude, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 OW Northern Pond Extension of Dam pond 0.298

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.298
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.016
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.132
.Open Water Impact (acres): 0.298
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.446
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 230
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 USAGE.
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.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe 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
Updated 11 / 1 /2005
Page 5 of 10

were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The proposed Griffith Lakes Development has been redesigned multiple times in an
effort to avoid and minimize impacts to the site. Methods used to avoid the impacts on the site
included 1) redesign of the developments layout 2) elimination of residential lots and 3)
alternative methods of road construction. Areas of hi Quality streams were specifically
avoided and will be protected by a conservation easement. In certain areas impacts could not be
avoided due to the City of Charlottes connectivity of roads requirement and to the alignment of
the existing_power line (see Figures 4 and 5).
The redesign included modifying the design to include two bottomless culverts. Those
two proposed bottomless culverts will be private roads and not maintained by NCDOT. A
registered Professional Engineer in conjunction with a Conspan representative will design the
bottomless culverts to adhere to the City of Charlotte guidelines and ensure structural and
hydraulic integrity
In the areas where the impacts could not be avoided, the layout was designed as to
minimize the impacts as much as possible. Photos of the~power line and proposed impacted
areas and fiQUres depictin tg he layout have all been included as supporting documentation in this
permit application.
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 (see DWQ website for most current
version.).
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 10

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.
The proposed mitigation for the 230 linear feet of stream and 0.43 acres of open
water/wetlands being impacted will be performed onsite and in the same watershed. The
miti atg ion plan includes 2744 feet of stream preservation. The streams being_preserved as
part of the miti ation plan are UT to Mallard Creek (1890 LF) and Mallard Creek (854 LF)
and are shown in Figure 6. Both streams have forested floodplains that will be preserved
through a conservation easement. The City of Charlotte's planned egr enway will also be
included on the Mallard Creek reach. A USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form was
completed for each of the two reaches and is attached.
The miti atg ion plan also includes the preservation of 22.75 acres of the three existing
ponds. These ponds will also be surrounded by a buffer. The buffer on the lar eg pond
averages 100 feet and the buffers on the two smaller ponds average 50 feet each. The total
buffer area for all three ponds is 14.69 acres of forested buffer.
Overall, the Griffith Lakes Development plan calls for a total of 152.7 acres of open space
including the preservation of 2744 linear feet of stream and 22.75 acres of open water to
mitigate for the unavoidable impacts on the site. The USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Forms, maps, and photographs of the proposed preservation areas are attached as part of this
permit application package.
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 http://www.nceep.net/pages/inlieureplace.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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 10

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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? 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
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* 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.
XI. 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
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 10

the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
The site is currently undeveloped; post construction the site will have 135.25 acres or 34.24%
impervious surface. The calculations are included in the table below. There are a variety of
storm water quality BMPs proposed to protect the surface waters and wetlands on site and
downstream of the property. The BMPs will be located to treat storm water runoff before it
enters the three existing_ponds and before it leaves the property. Approximately 24 vegetated
BMPs and 10 urban BMPs will be designed for 85% TSS removal. Fi rgu e 7 portraythe
proposed BMP locations.

ID
Descri lion Total
Area
% Im ervious Impervious
Area
MUDD Mixed-Use Urban 51.38 88.0% 45.2144
MX lA Single Family 55x115 10.25 30.0% 3.075
MX 1B Multi Family townhomes 7.8 60.0% 4.68
MX 1C Sin le Famil 55x115 22.1 30.0% 6.63
MX 2 Single Family 75x125 22 25.0% 5.5
MX 3A Sin le Famil 50x100 51.1 30.0% 15.33
MX 3B Multi Famil townhomes 12.7 60.0% 7.62
MX 3C Multi Family apartments 5.8 50.0% 2.9
MX 4 Sin le Famil 50x100 3.2 30.0% 0.96
MX 5 Commercial 0.42 88.0% 0.3696
MX 6 Multi Famil townhomes 27.4 60.0% 16.44
MX 7 Commercial 7.65 88.0% 6.732
Roads roads 20.2 98.0% 19.796
O en Area 153 0.0% 0
TOTAL 395 135.247
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.
The site will be connected to City of Charlotte wastewater system.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
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
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 10

~ YeB, ply s~mit a quslitstive or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in acoordana with
the most secant Narth t,.arolina Division of Vllater QaalitY PoixY P~~ on our website at
2o.enr.atate.nc.us/ncwetiands. !f ~~ p~ proms a shat nsntive dlacripiian:
'il...1~~ .. 91 L_ Gdt_. ~____. _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
XV. Ottier Circumstaeep (Optloean:
it ie the applicant's rapoa~sibility to sabanit the application snf£~ciently is advance of desired
construction dates to allow procxssing time for these petmib. However, an applicant may
choose fp list constraints associated with eoion or sequencing that may impose limits oa
work schedules (e.g., draw.down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, aoceen'bility problems, or other issues oatside of the applianri eaDntrol).
/%~/fl
signatore is vfdid only if an authociTatioa letter from the applicant is providod.)
Ella wiaoos
tease to o~ to

07-1810
I N
Wildlands En ineerin , InC. Griffith Lakes Development
Yadkin 03040105 ~ ity of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
_._... A
OCT 2 6 2007
D~NF~ r i~4A1'EK (~tJHIITY
NIETLAF~3 ANp 3Tt)RAANAT6R BRANCH

oz-~s~c
N
A
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Yadkin 03040105
Griffith Lakes Development
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC

oz
~ Wildlands En~ineerin~, IrTLI f~ r~+ I~ nMt~ n Griffith Lakes Development
Yadkin 03040105
~~(~~ ~ ~ !007
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
-~•-
YVE~~ih!'tQ Ak"u~ :fit ! icyQ?~~ Ceti

F~ure 4: Site Plan

/~
%~ I!
i` \
I ~ ~~
,I
I,

GRIFFITH
, ,,.--,,--.----~~

,~,
,.
'~~, LAKES
\
.~ ~,

;~
;
~ '~~~~ Charlotte
i/
>,
~
' r. `~'~`;,
~'~,
~~~a,,,`
Mecklenburg
,
;I
~, ; I ;
.~ '. ~,,,

County,
'~ - ~ I ,;
, ---~ North Carolina
,~
,
,
II ~ ~~,
,,
,.

,
'
,
I ~ °
" 0
', '~,
#
~ I~
~ •~
°° O`\U'.®
~ ' ~ ~~
~ •~• ° V '' ~"'~
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /' ~~ Q Q ?,~,
,, \
,~~

,' PETRIONER
t •rrt~H E ut~•t~a LLC
GK t u ,

I ~ ~~
LAKE UJ'" ~~I• ,~(c9 ~ ~ ~ •;
0 ~ ~
~
/
~
~
~ :'•.
~
uj~ '"\
, Iwk oRUNSwrcTC Ave.
CtlAlt„.~,amT

4~ I
~ I I
u"
~
~ ~
~
'
'
PREPARED BY:
H
k
, ~ I
~' ~ ",~ nz~
w..
~
~
.. ~
J k °
~ ~ I ' ~ .
~•
1 O
I O
~ ~ ~
; r
~ ~ PETRIONER5 AGENT:
I ~ °~~>r ~ .~ '~'~` " ~ ~• %`'~
~ ~ KENNEDY COVINGTON
pq
• .~. .~...- .-.._.._..._
d/) i' II I'
I I "~~i+~
~i~"~
~, p ~ ATTOaNEVBAT IAW
NEA0.8TTOWEIL ~7a FlODR
711 NOR1H TRY0N STRffT
®O / i
~ LAKE
~
~ I~.`y
II ClWiLOTTE,NC la707
PH Qa1971-7JH
~ ~.
~ ~
~~
X11 r ,~ ;
j ~.~,;
I ' ~ ~ ' I
J` 1 ~ ~
' ~ ~
<I ,~~~~./'~ / ISSUE:
REZONING PETITION
~ y
I ~ j
' I r I ' y~ ~~
i I ~
~ ~ ~, ~
'" `~ '
~ `f
~
~ d ,
i`1; -
-
. _.
/ REVISIONS :
•~ ~ ~ ~~", ~ h, ~~
,
~
. ~ ~
19
81697
SEE CHIAf
"~ ~
~~
" ~ « ^ ^ n ~7}~~ 10 iNIM PER:BRO'NN AtIGNMENf
'
' I I
•
~
, j
~
• ~
~
I,
i
C; t(
t(
1V
T \\
v
!f {I
~C
~ f
~ .F'a
• /
1 {
~
~
w
/ 4
(
L
7
,, y '~* r ` ~ ~
\' `~ ,•:u' 4'~:-3•r
1
~ O
0 C T 2 ZOQ7 03018107
Date:
i, ,~ ) ' ~ i I \ `-----_ s_. i
/
~
~ Protect No.: 06334
" ~
O ~,"~ti
" +
' I ~' `
~
ITY Checked By: NWC
yawn By: CAT, JAG
;
I
"/,`r` ~ $T C
l
! r ,~~ ,:~!`,~' •~• ~ 0' 150' 300' 6D0' NORTH
'
~
~~ '~ pl ,-t ' ~ r
t ~:;J'
i
rmE:
j~;' •~
a~~~e i,'' SCHEMATIC
' a1~ ~~"
'k • PLAN
~
~
,,.
;: -'t'• ,k ~ ;~'~;'
J:ICAD DATA1_ProJaWU1633/ GrYA6l labtlDnwWp"YkvNW.~n1 PgMi22-07 NaaM10 PNNan RwIrQV•11-m N170NIIq SulWn~ac wn uWx®luun rnwinuuwi,.mry .u i., .w~ - ~...,y.~~

07
Wildlands En ineerin ,Inc. Griffith Lakes Development
Yadkin 03040105 City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
~-

07
~ Wildlands En~ineerinQ, Inc. Griffith Lakes Development
Yadkin 03040105
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
-~--

~ ~ ~ ~
G
d xMx~ D
E ~.w
J
~~P
~4
VICINTY MAP
NI
E.2.B.f
-r_' 1,,
•
MUDD ILLAG
0
~ ----- t
J wA~e
N ~GNw ~ttl ~ \
w ~
~ Ml1D[3 =~UB i
~ COMPONENT B ~ I I
(T 39.2 AC
50'
PNRCLLeaxesn
Vt
z~ ~%aNpA
CN%AL
,'~
~,•' '~
~ . '~.
MX Jl lii
SUBCOMPONENT '
3A ~",
NOTE: SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACTUAL AID
COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF ENTRLEMENfS AND
CONVERSION RDHB.
KEY
MX COMMUNITY
MUDD VILLAGE
MONUMENT SIGN H
STORMWATER MASTER PLAN
WATER QUALITY BMPNOLUME
PEAK CONTROL
WATER QUALITY BMP
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
(PRESERVATION (RESTORATION
STREAM RESTORATION ~.
100-YR FLOOD PLAIN
SWIM BUFFER
STORMWATER IN THIS AREA IS
DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO
THE FLOODPLAIN OF MALLARD
C EE(
WI
PROPOSED LEFT
TURN LANE
7s~
DID
HyF~~n^j`~RY ~bJB
"3~
e~
MUDD-SUB
COMPONENTA
3D.BAC
H
N
3C
\ oqy
s~
~, ,EB~%~NNO~a~A ~:; GRIFFITH
.` a~~aAJUre
~~`'°~ ~m" _ ~~~ LAKES
My ~~ • `~~
JgeJI n-'"'
•• , ~
N e/Jyfy
PNN;EL8Da10eB10 xE ~~
zaNlxc:auNfrynl ~~'~
owNE13s:3~NORrx MX
cARO3JNAwARTNExrs~ ..,.
COMPONENT?
+~
zD.t Ac ~ AG
1fF1S ~ T 1 ~~.
Sri A,... ~~~ ~ ~! rt'
a~°~' P, ENT,
MX ~ ~I i ~~'' ~~
COMPONENTS j
8.57AC ~
Mx I
SUBCOMPONENT I ~~
1C 1 h
O 31.28 AC I SUB• A ~,
~ PONE T ~;~ Y*
1B
'( C E -- I _ 9 .40 AC ~~
~•B f G N I JKLMN
W DP 00.b iV V XI:i. Y,i.
i ,, ~ ETTTn-,r ' T'rx' .
MX
COMPONENT6
45.5 AC
/ MX W
COMPONENT
teaac MX
'~ ° COMPONENT2
i
If 44.9 AC
~~A* '
~
COMP NEN'(3
117,4 AC
Mx
MPONE
3B ~~+
OF RS
CONST IONdF
NC 11D B

.NT CN~.EyFx
~V I~ P >

~ ~~
,'r
f//
r/
116 j/''
11
` S~J x
n h
;

AT

~: J
~'?--T'~ .
- _
4
Ba3191a
ms~6
I!~s
~i~~
^
•~ J'
~1 ~ 31810•
ANP~ µ~4 ~§E
1 % 1 w~~"
R - P
- 4 •."
r
PARCF1e 04388110
20XMIG RJ
OwNERS:POTrERau
oeJaaPERauc
AAxERB.roT1FIe II
GEVELOPFRBLLC
MALGRD CREEK GREENWAY
AS PER MECKLENBURG
couNn PARKS AND
RECREATION PIAN
} .•
v: ~
6YI~DL P/ACEIe 01VeffR 20NNG
A 01311]65 KACEN,PMEIAJ. RJ
B a11BR8 bTRWO, EPoW.R RJ
L ahem PD11EA4DEVFLDPEAR INC. RJ
D D°IAMf B%N%S,IANCF10TA6CYNBwIFV. RJ
E OA1BN2 CNEla3, ERN;GlOfANN N. RJ
f
G a11AM6
a]1BNT GOME2, F8TF/1W R.aANGFl111 RJ
NIXEW%18kJA1E8L RJ
N altel/e WAieF1L,JK0IJA RJ
1 a]teNB MI.90N,J09HVAafArbfN RJ
J a3fef50 NFN,TNJWILLaMgLY AVZ RJ
K 0lete151 MW00, Ktl(D.J RJ
3
N Bulelss
B°le+s3 K00, PHElPA RJ
aus,wa+EV O. RJ
X a]tBta THERVWlD GRgR, INC. RJ
D a11B1eB NLLL, GINGFAaWAYNE RJ
P WIe156 NINX5011, ANONENEVOJF RJ
G
R ae1e153
WIe1a BIINTON, FRE0El8CKD. RJ
FEIUUIIDEZ, VIRGINNBN~lWF, RJ
S alleteB ASUNUNU, FDUw{BLGOIA RJ
T a3N16p HNPoB, HAIJEJN RJ
U x119181 UFFFRfY, NOEL t. RJ
V x118182 WHTE,IMNAIJE0.pME RJ
w wlela MERILVarbIKILP, INt RJ
%
r x119189
aw1a1 THERYJJDOROLP, ING RJ
FnKER, BI/JO:A RJ
Z 0ala{1B NORIOX, NKIVFL0. RJ
M a31Np5 WNiINGTON NDGENDIEOATl7Ci WI2 MF 8bl
ut a121Bes wJxnlK3roxruoGExoNEarTrEas an NF lal
w a3231w wxnNOroxwoDExaJEOnrrnns R-1: NF lcDI
w
AE amla
a3331B3 xlxrxglDxwD3ExOlEOnrFNb W11 w'1~1
HUNTNGTON NaBE NpLOW1ER5 R~f2 MfILDI
N a3YJ2a HUNTINOTDNNDGE HOMEOATERb R11 MF 3CD1

~ S
BwJea PIACEIi pYA£R n~
%~i u
NI a1N130 STONE FANLY ENi. M.. F1
N a3NA1 BTDNE,wGLG W.JR RJ
u a3N21B cP INxiGw muN.Of aMJUmT~uc RJ
AK
N d1N253
a3uns w,r, ofivECCNIOJ.aeREYAAO,IAOLarAL
LEONWO,NPoSfYL ny,
R T

AM
a3u21e
cP IRIRGw couN. ofawuoTrF,uc ~
w a3xm cP INKWw[aw. oFavwnTrE,ut. NI
w alone cP INriGw COON. ofawnoTTE,uC. RI
M
w
1A a3N2iB
x301100
a.3aa1 CP NORCuVJ CDMM, OF gIVBDTTE, LLC.
CP MORGAN Ca1M.Of OWBATTF. LLC.
CMRAWAY, PENNY RJ
t~N
'-~
w a3wu cP sxlRCw cwN. of a9NBOTIE, ua
AT 013affi8 BETNEA EDGERT E.a11VLYE.
w a3aas oNmxoalE In DEVeroERSlICa
AY a31A101 REED ENIERPRBE9 of CJNP1G11EIM. RJ
Charlotte
Mecklenburg
®® County,
®~ North Carolina
~ ~
~~~ 07- 1 8 1
®

PETITIONER.
~ ~ Gxlt•>'~rrtL E1~urrLBS, LLC

V
- I~ ~F tw1 eauNSwlclc Ave.
CNAetmTC, N. C. u1m
nlssvLn
Hade~q~ia/e
F~ - : ; rweawele
:
ii mwBWdr mlmm33
.
K xrso mlwml.
O.baKam .xhBwudl.n
PETITIONERS AGENT:
KING & SPALDING, LLPA
ATTORNEVB AT UW
307 MCCULLOUGH ORNE, ITH FLOOR
CHARLOTTE. NC 18181
PN (IOQ 50}2581
REZONING PETITION
1 SNSg7 OF COLPDIfNTS cau
2 6'ISg7 ADO®TREE SAVE IREA
3 BR1N7 woEOTREESr'rEARFA
RE[AICEDMX7 SO.FbOT
1 gp07 M TREE SdEAAFI
SHEET L1.7
5 1MIN07 ~~ TE EEl
NB. OBY WBY%OBne
~ Date: 03016107
D
IUI V
V Project No.: 06334
Checked By: KWC
~~~~ Drawn By: CAT, JAG
LITA!
7~N GUP
J
;
A
~T~ 0' 150' 300' 6DD' NORTH
SCALE:1"=30D'
TmE:
TECHNICAL
DATA SHEET
L1.0
DoamelN SndSewrysypommnNy fkanlellblDrawNN2.dAq (kl iB, 2007-10:03em

r
0 ? ~ g , ~
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Fonn Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Griffith Lakes Development
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (1at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.325053° N, Long. 80.817722° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mallard Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Yadkin River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S" within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):and the abutting wetlands limits are based on the1987 manual.
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
^ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under iPapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands it any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine it the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g, tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

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

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

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directlv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directlv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLl~:
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: An I/P determination was made using the NCDWQ Stream Identification Method (form is attached).
^ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 530 linear feet 3 width (ft).
® Other non-wetland waters: 3.99 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: pond.
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: The wetlands have a continuous surface connection to the RPW. Wetland determination
form (following USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual), mapping and photographs of the two wetland
location are included as supporting documentation.
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.34 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters v
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
® Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U. S.," or ~ ..,.~.,cj..~-~ •~''~" ~ ~ c ~kP ~ o r\ ~ . ~ Ste. e
^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):lo
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
^ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
BSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLl~:
^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for imgated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
^ Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
^ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
^ FEMA/FIRM maps:
^ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date):
or ®Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
^ Applicable/supporting case law:
^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
^ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

USACE AID#
OT-1g10
DWQ # _ _- _ Site #_ (indicate on attached map) j
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ~ - f ~ +}~P ~ 2. Evaluator's name: ~ Y L~ ~ _ ~-rt ~_
q: ~
3. Date of evaluation: ~" ~b 4. Time of evaluation: ~+~
5. Name of stream: ~a-" ar ~l ~~t ~ ~ ~L 6. River basin: ~ ~,1L + ~
7. Approximate drainage area:
t
9. Length of reach evaluated: Soo
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
8. Stream order: c~. r
10. County: 'rnc°_ ~- ~-~+? ,n ~
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Lon itude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet rtho Aerial Photo/ `Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
~~:~- ~ ~~ c~ ~otC~O ~ S 1SC~~~f t ~'itL. I n ~~ ~ - ~ , ~-i -ti, ~-.~ ~~l 1~~~-i ~c~
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: dlC~~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: <~ ! y p~ ~ f Cc_ ~--~
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: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
1 ~ (
22. Bankfull width: ~ ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): `1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: /Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight /Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total S re (frem r+everse): ~t~
~"1 ~ o+.ti c R 'C a~ S'~c c
Evaluator's Signature / G `~ Date
This channel evaluation form is intended t e s d my s a aide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States rmy or s of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion o th' form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to c nge -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS. ECOREGIDN POIl~1T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mpuntain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0
5

no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max oints - 0 - 4 0 - 5
2 Evidence of past human-alteration

extensive alteration = 0~ no alteration = max oints 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide .buffer = max oints 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 ~..~ .
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive dischar es = 0• no dischar es = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4
r-1 5 Groundwater discharge

~
no dischar e = 0; s rin s se s wetlands etc. = max oints 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

no flood lain = 0• .extensive flood lain = max: oints 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2

p" ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
dee 1 entrenched= 0• fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max oints 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 a
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4
extensive d osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine homo enous = O; lar a diverse sizes = max oints NA 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

~+
dee 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
~ 13 Presence of major bank failures
,
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5
14 Root depth and density on banks

E*
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu hout = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial im act ~• no evidence = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6

~ no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
H
bit
t
l
i

'
17 a
a
comp
ex
ty 0- 6 0- 6 0
6
'E"'„~ 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 oints)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0
5
~„~ no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max oints -
C7
21 Presence of amphibians
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 f

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
t nese characterlsttcs are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # ~~~ Site # (indicate on attached map)
~-- ------ -~~~- - ----_ ------- ff
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the strrream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ~ ' t ~ ~ t ~~ e- 2. Evaluator's name: n~-~ ~ ~ `-~ O'`1 ~ ~ V`
3. Date of evaluation: ~' c3 ~ 1 O~ 4. Time of evaluation: ~ ~ •• Ob ~•r.
5. Name QQf stree~am: e~ Gtrv`.k.-~ !' . ~ w -~'~ 6. River basin: ~ COQ ~~- ~ Y~
'(1(`aa~a~.c-- C(P~Q- (. o~„Q.~ rer_ca •'1 n
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: Q~
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~ ~ ~ 10. County: ~~. ~ ~-~ .-.~ ~~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611): _ __
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other ___
13. L.o~catio~ny~of reach unlder evaluation+(note nearb/y'roads~a~n'd landmarks and attach ma1p identifying stream(s) location):
~]r~.7v y ~~ htGl T ~ S ~1 v~ - \1f . it ~`rl. ~ n ~..P J - V t c-~ v~ ~ '~.J ~w..~ ~ ~ ~ Lie?
14. Proposed channel work (if any): {~
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: S
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: _% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: i c~` 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): (Q
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ~lat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight /Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (fr11o~m reversQj): Cyl Comments:)
~~~,-~ eT Gn('~a ~/Q.rit C_/"~-,~S•- qty ti` ~ nr.r_~ n r~P~ ~G7~.jP_ r ~ r~2 Li
Evaluator's Signature ` Date
This channel evaluation form s inten ed to be use on a assist andowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army C r s f E gineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this f m 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 ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECUREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
no flow or saturation =A• strop flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
extensive alteration= 0• no alteration = max oints

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive dischar es = 0• no dischar es = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4 •-~
d no dischar e = 0• s rip s se s wetlands etc. = max oints c~C
,
~
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
=
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2 `~
J
~
., (no flood lain
0• extensive flood lain = max oints
',I', ~ Entrenchment/ floodplain access
p"' (dee 1 entrenched = 0• fre went floodin = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 2

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
•
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 2 /'1
LJ
no wetlands = O; lar a ad
a¢ent wetlands = max oints

9 Channel sinuosity
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4
extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5
fine homo enous = 0• Lar a diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
dee 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
a
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
-•~ severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
~ 14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5
, no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu hout = max oints
~"
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max ints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 ,~
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0• well-develo ed = max oints)
~ 17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6
(little or no habitat = 0• fre uent varied habitats = max oints)
p4
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
~'
no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous cano = max oints)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4
dee 1 embedded = O; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

O
22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max oints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
~` 1 nese charactenst~cs are not assessed in coastal streams.

j USACE AID# v DW # i _ Site # _. ~ _~
~ ~ Q (indicate on attached map)
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach uni
1. Applicant's name: EC. C1f ~ ~ ~, ~~:~~ ~ P
3. Date of evaluation: ~' ~FJ`D-~'
5. Name of strea~t ~ . ~ ~'~
YY1o-~~ckd~~,~e.l~. L~PP-e1 -c.
7. Approxtmate drain ge area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: (j)
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
ler assessment:
2. Evaluator's name: _ r ~ ~ V c /~ ~ ~ /
4. Time of evaluation: (f~ ~ ~ ~
6. River basin: ~ ~Ct ~ %-,
8. Stream order: ~ `~
10. County: 1 y' ~ ~. ~ 1 ~.P ._~ ~, v C
12. Subdivision name (if any):
(ex. -77.556611):,
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS ~~ Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads a a zhr attach map identifying stream(s) location):
o „~n.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; 5 ~ 1 v ~ - Cif : ~,-r~ ~.a1~ s - ~'; ~, ,~ . ~..., ~~ -~~+~ ±,.a...~
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: .ll ~~! L,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of th valuati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
~n point? YES NO f yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: Ili ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5 ~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) /Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: / Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signature l _~ ~ l.t~l . / / I
This channel evaluation form is intended to be us~d_o~
gathering the data required by the United States Army\
quality. The total score resulting from the completion c
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to
Date
i ~tv a s st landowners and environmental professionals in
of ngineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
For is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
-version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
# CH
E
S S
ARACT
RI
TICS CORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone. 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5
no buffer = 0• eonti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or`chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4
extensive disch es = 0• no dischar es = max oints
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 3
V no dischar e = 0• s rip s se s wetlands etc. = max oints
r•~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
~~,,, (no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
G,.C,` ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
p'' dee 1 entrenched = 4• fre uent floodin = max oints)
8 'Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 3
no wetlands ° O; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 a
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4
extensive d osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 ~

fine homo enous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max oints ,
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 = 5
y+ dee 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
,,E"''.,
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints)
~' , 14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 .~
no visible roots = 0•.dense roots throu hout = max oints ~

I S Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6
no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
~
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
F (little or no habitat = 0• fre went
varied habitats = max oints
r~ ,

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
no shadin ve elation = 0• continuous cano = max oints)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
~ (no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
t7 21 Presence of amphibians 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4
O? no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 = 4
0 - 4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
.Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) ~,
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

~ USACE AID# DWQ # ~ Site # (indicate on attached map)
l___ -.-- -- - -- - -- ----------~
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information forthe~ stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: s c .~ h ~' ~ t? ~ 2. Evaluator's name: !\C~ (Q C~ Ow ' .Q
~- 3 S b. i t- 30 ~,„ t
3. Date of evaluation: ` ~ 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: ~~-4-~ y~~-~-~ '(~cL~~ circ~ ,~ ~Ir 6. River basin: ~ ~ l<-- i a~
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: (~~
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Orthc
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads an
10. County: rn~~- ~ w ~
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Lon itude (ex. -77.556611):
(Aerial) Photo/GI5 Other GIS Other
I ~~1 `attach map identifying stream(s) location):
C1~ , ~t ~'~ h ~ eJ,v2 l - \~ ~ y
14. Proposed channel work (if any): `-~
15. Recent weather conditions: ~1J ~
~~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: c~ ~ ~ ~t~ : ~1~ r
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 f 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: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: ~ ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ ~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _~Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends ?Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from rle+ver~1sie): lS~`V Comments:
Evaluator's Signatu e ~ Date
This channel evaluatton form is intended to be use o 1 as a gut ssist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States y Cor s of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion o is 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 ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERIST
S CO
IC S
RE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 L~
(no buffer = 0• Conti ous -wide buffer = max oints

4 Evidence of nutrient or ehemical discharges
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 4 j ~
,
extensive dischar es = 0• no dischar es = max oints ~}.
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
V no dischar e = 0• s rip s se s wetlands etc. = max oints
~ 6 Presence'of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
a ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2
no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 `?

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints ~
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 I
fine homo enous = O; lar a diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
~ dee 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
~; 14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5
F no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu hout = max oints)
~
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6
no riffles/ripples or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
d
1 ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
~ little or no habitat = 0• fr uent varied habitats = max oints) '

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 `~
J
no shadin ve etation = 0• continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 - 4
0 - 5
0 - 5
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 I
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)

Q
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - 5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
0T-~~1~
Project I Site:_ ~~~F~ ~ p~~, ~ w~,
~a D~_ Date:
r
Applicant (Owner: - County:
Investigator: State•
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Y
~ Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species ~@ Indicator
1. ~~ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. ...5 S~ncz... °~ SryR+e4 Fac~M 10.
3. [~JC~~ e ~
~ 11.
~,
~~ ~ ~~
4._~~„c,.~~~~~5 ~ ~_ 12.

6. Q,~Sv~P 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). p
Remarks: I~Sr--.~~~r ~iy1~t- ~ ~i'irR& ~,~, ~S
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tkie Gauge _
-Aerial Photographs PrimanWndicators:
_ Other ndated
aturatsd in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Wabr Narita
D Unes
Field Observations: invent Deposits
Drainage PatEems in Wetlands
Depth of Surtace Water: 1'~ (in.) Secondary Indicators•

Depth to Free Water in Pk: D (tn.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Wabr~ined Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: ~ (in.) Local Sotl Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Proflk Descriction:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texturo, .Concretions,
linchesl Horizon IMunsell Moistl
v-~ y
~~ ~~2 S a Stnuture. etc.
~
'
~
. _ ~,5
~L.
t s 1~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Htstosol _ Concrotlons
Histic Epipsdon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sutfldk Odor Organic Stroaking in Bandy Soils
Aquic Mobturo Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils Lbt
_~Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~~// Gleysd or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks: 1'1vt~` Sw~.g ~ 5a~-S 1~ N~.IOh~
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetatbn Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No Within a Wetland? Yes~o
HydNc Soils Present? Yes ~No
Remarks: w~1.~A ~S lOerR ~`+~ L~r~ 4d62Fi.iW ~R.oh~
~oND d~~D~3 a-tiypR.vtl~ ~-c "~+'-i: ~N~1-+4~T~
~Ai.F' mY wto~i.+HI~ 1s (,e Iwd P ~o,n~i2.~+KF~ w~~+~t~`~fl

DATA FORM
_ ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: R~ i7r~ tl ~ ~ Date:
Owner:
l ' ~
~
stigato
Inve ,.-~~ 3hte
_~
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Y No Community ID:
is the site signfficantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No~~ Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No~,_ Piot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
~.5ominant Plant Soscies Stratum Indicator
1. Dominant Plant Soscles $$~, indicator
9.
2. 10.
3, a L ~_ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7.
8. ~ 1b.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OB•L, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: 1 ~~ ~~~ ~~

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial f~hotographs
Other
~ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water. ~ ~ ~(in,)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Win.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~ (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
PrimaryJadicators:
/~ tsd
~~uurat~d in t)pper•1Z"
/Water Marks
Drtit Unse
invent Deposit,:
rainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidtz6d Roots Channels in upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Surrey Date
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (F.xp1aM in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name ~ Lm`~ ~''~~~°~ 5„0(7 S
(Series and Phase):_ ; :~ ~ f•~ ~~ Drainage Class: ~k~- ~~N~i~
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~• ~ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Proflli Desariotlon:
DcPth ~ Mrrtrbc Colors Mottle Colors Mottlo Texture, Concrotlone~
nn~n~~ Horizon IMunsell Molstl (Munsell Moistl S
~0-8 IoYR 3/1 Y ~57e ~i5{~i~G't ~~
$- IoYIL 5/2 ~-.5'(R zo°~/D~s-~~„c+ Sil~,l Clay
Hydric Sotl Indicators:
_ Histosol / Concretions
- Histlc Eplpsdon High Organic Content in Surtace Layer in Sandy Soils
3ulRdic Odor Oryanic Strsaktng In Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisturo Regime Lbbd On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Lbted on Natlbrptl Hydric Solis List
~Z Gleyed or L:oMr-Clu~oma Coosrs Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Prosent? Yes o Is the Sampling Polnt
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydrlc Soils Present? Yss ~b
Remarks: ~! L ~ - ~~v~C~ ~~l
~ ~a ~-~_ ~

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Ske: ~a2,tQrti 1.~,..~. w~~ ~ j, ~'~.-. Date:
Applicant /Owner: County:
Investigator: State: ~,~,
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
~ Communky 10:
Is the ske significantly disturbed (Atypical skuation)? Yea No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No~ Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
pominant Plant Beetles Stratum Indicator
1. 1.1,.w„+~ .~.eo~ h~ D9minant Plant Sosciea Stratum Indicator
8.
2. ~lcs~ y~c+.u-ri. ~~ ~ 10.
3. ~t~us A~.~~c-Fa.-A ~ ~_ 11.
4. I~.l~~tt1~ . lA~~,.wR ~ ~_ 12.
b. ~~ ~rww~~Fo~.rk V-~ ~g- 13.
6. 14.
7. 1b.
8. ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: F.pR~-'-I ~ upc~~sw+K- / 'rtgrt~~ ~lF,~-i~ecrl~
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primaryindicators:
- Other tnundated
~
Y
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available - Water Marks
Lines
Field Observations: _ `~ment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ~' (ia•) Secondary Indicators•

Depth to Free Water in Pk: O (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels In Upper 12"
- Water~tained Leaves

y _ Local Soil Sunray Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.) -FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Selves and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Pro81e Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottls Colors Mottle Texturo, Concrotions,
iltl~l._ Horizon M Abu structure. etc.
~^I ~ R i
~ HydNc Soil Indkators:
_ Histosol _ Concrotions
_ Hbtic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
SuMidk Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
quit Mobture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Sobs List
educing CondWons Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology .Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Faf>~stii~ wF~„~q.,l' pd~',~e~~-~-~- TO R-.~ -u~ti~Ti~+~
GrIM+~.~-. ~

1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: iFrT*f L. ~ Date:
Applicant /Owner: County:
Investigator: I . State:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes V No --- Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
~Qminant Plant Soeciss Stratum Indicator
1. L Dominant Plant Soscies Stratum lndkator
9.
2. _~ 10.
-r=
4. ~ ~_
12.

6. ~;_ 14.
7. 16.
8. 16.~
Percent of DomMant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC eXcludtng FAC-).
Remarks: ~~~~ F`A
HYDROLOGY
Recorded.Data (Describe In Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
._, No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:. I'' ~ (in.)
Depth to Free Water M Pit: ~ (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~(in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary icators:
~lrfundated
Saturated fn Upper 12"
Water Marks
omt unee
T~Sediment Deposits
~~// Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water~talned Leaves
Local soil survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other .(Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name ~w1~0 ~F~'( '~ /D
(Series and Phase):_ ~ Drainage Class: V..W.,~. ~'JbNt.~
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Deseriotlon•
D~apth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mettle . Texturo, Concretions,
iinchesl Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munssll Moistl Abundance/Contrast Stricture. etc.
p- I~+- IOYR y~~ ~ SY2 y/y 1o7e / F~.;..~ ~ ~~ CIS.
Hydric Soil Indicators: .
Histosol / Concretlons
Histlc Epipedon High Organic Conbsnt In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Stroaidng in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soib List
Redudng Conditions Listed on Natfonat Hydrk Soils Ust
~ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors Other (Explain in Remarfcs)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERNNNATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No b the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Pressrlt? Yes o Within a Wethndy Yes_ No
Hydric Sails Present? Yss Nb
Remarks:
.~
~~r~ ~

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determiry~tion Manual)
Project /Site: ~'~~gs~ ~ ,~~ ~ I,Jf o' Date:
Applicant /Owner: County: ~
Investigator: r' rw~t- State:
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ~ No
~ Community ID:
Is the site significanty disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No~ Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ~ Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soacles $tntuni lndieator pQminant Plant Soeci~ Indicator
2. ~g~~ _~c~ 10.
3. ~ 11.
4, iLy.w~etr+A~SpIQ~ ,~ `~ ~'~ru4_ 12.
5. ~~~...~.~,.~r-ESL _~~ ~ 1S.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. ~ 76.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 5 ~
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
= Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other undated
_ Saturated in Upper 12"
- No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- Drift Unes
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patbems in Wetlands
Depth of Surtace Water: ~ (~•) Secondary Indicators

Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~ (in.) Oxidb~d Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water~tainsd Leaves

I a' - Local Soil Sunray Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.) -FAC-Neutral Test
- Other ~Explaln in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Descrlotion:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors
Mottle Texturo, Concretions,
(inched Horizon (Munsell Moistl IMunsell Moi stl Abundence/Contrast Structuro. etc.
6 o R ~ 5,~.r,a c~.r~

~i - IG+
Co - S ~rtt c~.kM ura1~A
Hydric Soil Indk:ators:
Histosol _ Concrotlons
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ SuHidk Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soib
_ Aqulc Moisture Regime Lbtsd On Local Hydric Soils Lbt
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils Lbt
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetatbn Present? Yes ~ No ~~ Is the Sampling Polnt
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Presenty Yes No
Remarks: u9 17~ 1~~..C~ .~~ Wsc~,«r+fl

r • DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Gr ~ ~~ ~ 1.0.1< e S Dater ~~` 8 -~.G
Applicant /Owner. ~~,~,; . /~ «k
Investigator: z»r / E14,~ State• l~C
,.
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? lfes~ No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ,/ Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No_ /L Plot ID:
(explain on reverse ff needed)
VEGETATION
3ontlnant Plant Species ~, Indicator
1• R'~ ~~' "~ Dominant Plant Species Indk~tor
9.
2. L.ob\a11 P~ ~_ 10.
3.~~,.~ ~_ 11. .
4. W\A ~ 72.
5. 0.,s... n~~~.. 1k 13.
6. 14.
~• 16.
' 8• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
•-
.HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
AsMal Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundatied
~Ssturabsd in Upper'12"
'- No Recorded Data Available Water Ma~ics
ort[t Lines
Field Observations: ~ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. ~- ~,)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth tta Free Water M Pk: ~ 2 ~,
) '~ O~ddized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
. Wabr~tained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12
(~~) Lot:al Soli Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
' Other (Explain in Rernarlcs)
Remarks:

SOILS
,,
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Deseriotion•
Depth Matrix Colors
i
1 H
Mottle Color; MottN Textyrs, Concretions,
etc
t Structure
t
d
dC
Ab
or
zon _
(1
O-3 ~ loYk 3 Z .
.
on
ras
un
anc
IMunsetl Molstl
S~If-, Cl~
-
3 - 9 ~ ~o YQ ~I ~ 3 T
--- ~'_.~ S ! C ~n .~ Lam..,,,,

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol ~ Concretions C`L .~ r{ -1 d "' ~ or ~ z
Histlc Epipedon High Organic Content in Sunc~e Layer in Sandy Soils
SuMidic Odor OrgaNc Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisturo Regime LJstsd On tacit Hydrlc Soils List
Rsdudng CondWons lJsbsd on Natlontl Hydric Bolls Lkt .
Gleyed or Low~hroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrok>gy Presstlt? Yes No 7 Within a Wetland? Yes_ No,,~
Hydric Soils Prosent? Yes No
Remarks:

~ 3
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
.;
`::
~,~
~:
x,r
Ij.
tee'::
Date: G~ ~ Project: ~ ~~ Latitude:
Evaluator: ~~ Site: ~~ ~ Longitude:
a
Total Points:
Sheam /s at least i--term>ttent (~ County: Other
H2 19 or mnn/af //t 30 ~'~,~ ~,~-,~_ e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = (~~ Absent Weak Mod rate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosi 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 ~ 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel ~jj 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ,N 0 ~ 2 3
9 ° Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 ~ 2 3
11. Grade controls _- 0 0.5 ~ 1.5
12. Natural valley or drain away 0 0.5 1
t3. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
ma~r~~w~a anuses ere rlOl nnea; see disCUSSions in manual
B. HYdrologv (Subtotal = ~~
14. Groundwater flow/discha 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, gr
Water in channel - d or rowi season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines 0 0.5 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = I I ~ ~ 1
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted lants in channel 2 1 0
22. Cra sh ~ 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 ~ 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians o 0 0.5
` 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note dh-ersity and abundance) 0 0.5 ~ 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0 0.5 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
Items 20 end 21 FOCUS on tlw nrnen.,,•n .,~ ~..,~s...~ .,is.,~~ N FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
e... ~o a. .... •we ...e. .,s ~ ea.. .sue..a ..~_.....
Notes: (use back side of this form for addifjonal notes.) Sketch:

Proposed Impact Areas
Photo Log
Photo 1. Wetland Impact Site 1 W
rhoto ~. Wetland Impact Site Z W
l

Proposed Impact Areas
Photo Log
Photo 3. Perennial Stream Impact Location 1 S
2
Photo 4. Upen Water Impact Site lOW