20151248 Ver 1_401 Application_20151215

_11
CWS1
Carolina Wetland Sernces
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 - Phone
704-527-1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR—NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
Date:
CWS Project #:
rtr s ire`
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
12/1/2015
2015-3534
2°151248
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
T
r i • r ' IIIIVl.,l rilib.l�l ILQ
IV -
Mom" IV 11
r.
1 121/2015 5 Application for WQC 3890
2 12/1/2015 1 Application Fee ($240)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen, Please find attached five copies of the Pre -Construction Notification and application for
WOC 3890 for the Ashe Meadows proiect. A check for the application fee of $240 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you, g /;Zk
o 'p
EC 0 2 2015
Gregg Antemann, PWS DNR - WATER RESO
401 & BUFFER PERMURCES
ITTING
Principal Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

�p W ATF9
A
me.
1. Processing
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
la Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps ®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
lb Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 29 or General Permit (GP) number
1c Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes
1 d Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401
because written approval is not required? Certification
❑ Yes ® No
1f Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program
1 g Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below
S1 •
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes
2. Project Information
2a Name of protect Ashe Meadows
2b County Union and Mecklenburg
2c Nearest municipality / town Indian Trail, Union County, Mint Hill, Mecklenburg County
2d Subdivision name N/A
2e NCDOT only, T I P or state - N/A
project no
3. Owner Information
3a Name(s) on Recorded Deed multiple
3b Deed Book and Page No
3c Responsible Party (for LLC if N/A
applicable)
3d Street address
3e City, state, zip
3f Telephone no
3g Fax no
3h Email address
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a Applicant is ❑ Agent ® Other, specify Carolina Development Services
4b Name Mr Jonathan McCall
4c Business name
(if applicable)
4d Street address
4e
City, state, zip
4f
Telephone no
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
Carolina Development Services, LLC
2627 Breckenridge Centre Drive
Monroe, NC 28110
704-401-7185
5. AgenVConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Gregg Antemann, PWS
5b
Business name
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
(if applicable)
5c
Street address
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
5d
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e
Telephone no
704-408-1683
5f
Fax no
704-527-1133
5g Email address gregg@cws-inc net
Page 2 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
1b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
1c Property size
2. Surface Waters
2a Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
proposed project
2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
2c River basin
Union County 08279001 and 08306001, Mecklenburg
County 19717319
Latitude 35171404 Longitude -
80 594328
(DD DDDDDD) (-DD DDDDDD)
135 acres
Duck Creek, UT to Duck Creek
IC
Yadkin (HUC 03040105)
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The project area consists of forested areas and fields Typical on-site vegetation includes white oak (Quercus alba),
shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), black oak (Quercus velutina), post oak (Quercus stellata), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), Carolina shagbark hickory (Carya carolinae-
septentrionalis), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
According to the Soil Surveys of Union and Mecklenburg Counties (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on-site soils consist of
Georgeville silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded (GeD2), Goldston very channery silt loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes (GoB), Goldston very channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (GoD), Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes (BaB), Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes CmB, Goldston -Baden complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
(GsB), and Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (TaB) None of the on-site soils are listed as having hydric
inclusions in the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Union and Mecklenburg Counties , nor are they listed as hydric sods
on the National Hydric Soils List for Union and Mecklenburg Counties
3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
014 ac
3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
289 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 264 linear feet of seasonal stream channel
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 78 acres of property into a single-family subdivision located in Union
County, North Carolina (Figure 6, attached) Union County is experiencing rapid population growth due its proximity to
Charlotte, Mint Hill, and Matthews and there is a need for residential housing in order to meet the current demand There are
no impacts associated with the construction of the interior roads and lots within the subdivision itself, however minimal
temporary impacts are proposed in order to provide sewer service to the new subdivision via one sewer crossing This project
is not a phased project and adjoining subdivisions are all owned by individuals and/or companies not associated with the
Ashe Meadows protect
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No 29, unavoidable temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this
project are limited to a total of 46 linear feet (If) of jurisdictional stream channel (Stream B) Impacts to Stream B (Duck
Creek) are the result of the construction of a sewer crossing and are subject to Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Rules
Figure 6 (attached) depicts the proposed subdivision layout overview
Sewer Crossing
Proposed impacts consist of 46 linear feet of temporary impacts to Stream B (Duck Creek) An 8 -inch gravity -fed, ductile
cast iron pipe (DIP) will be installed via an open cut, beneath Stream B (Figure 6, attached) Perpendicular crossings that
"disturb equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer with a maintenance corridor greater than 10 feet in width are
allowable with NCDWR approval" according to the Goose Creek buffer rules
The proposed sanitary sewer crossing is located in the northeastern portion of the property (Figure 6, attached) The
installation of the 8 -inch DIP at a perpendicular angle will result in 46 If of temporary impacts to Perennial Stream B and
approximately 0 35 acre disturbance within the Goose Creek Buffer (Figure 7, attached) Proposed impacts are minimal
All areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to preconstruction contours All impacted stream banks shall be
stabilized with rip rap below the high water mark (not to exceed one cubic yard per running foot) and plantings above the
high water mark Stabilized stream banks shall include all bank areas disturbed by the work Banks shall be restored to
their original contours The stream banks shall be stabilized with biodegradable coir fiber matting or other coconut fiber
matting Plantings shall consist of dormant native live stakes conforming to the Mecklenburg County SWIM requirements,
and shall be installed in the winter during the period from November to March The live stakes shall be planted so that
buds point upward and approximately 2 to 3 inches of wood is above the ground At least three buds on each stake
should be installed below ground to encourage root growth Live stake species should include silky dogwood (Cornus
amomun), silky willow (Salix sencea), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) only
Page 4 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? El Yes ®No El Unknown
Comments
4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ❑ Preliminary[:1 Final
of determination was made?
4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company
Name (if known) Other
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
5. Project History
5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
6. Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes, explain
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
1a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a 2b 2c 2d 2e
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non -404, other)
Temporary (T)
W1 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
2f
Area of impact
(acres)
2g. Total wetland impacts
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
If there are perennial or intermittent stream
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
Stream name Perennial
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
stream length
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2f
Area of impact
(acres)
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h Comments
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream
impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site,
then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a 3b
3c 3d
3e
3f 3g
Stream impact Type of impact
Stream name Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width (linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet) feet)
S1 ❑ P ®T Sanitary Sewer
Stream B ® PER
® Corps
8-15 46
Crossing
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
46
31 Comments Temporary impacts to tunsdictionial
streams total 46 linear feet
Page 6of14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a 4b 4c 4d 4e
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
— Permanent
(P) or
Temporary (T)
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below
5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose of (acres)
number pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill o -.it Section D of this form
6a. ❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ® Other Goose
Project is in which protected basin? Creek
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b 6c 6d 6e 6f 6g
Buffer impact
number — Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
(T)
Sanitary Sewer
Crossing ❑ Yes
B1 ❑ P ®T (Perpendicular) Stream B (Duck Creek) ® No 9,425
Temporary
Disturbance
Sanitary Sewer
Crossing ❑ Yes
B2 ®P ❑ T (Perpendicular) Stream B (Duck Creek) ® No 5,655
Maintenace
Corridor
B3 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts 15,080
61 Comments Total Riparian Buffer dirturbance totals 15,080 square feet
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Ilmpacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U S have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters Construction activities and
impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U S will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality
Certification No 3890 All work will be constructed in the dry Temporary impacts have been limited 46 If of jurisdictional
stream channel and no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed
In an attempt to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a "No Build" alternative
was considered The property was purchased for the purpose of providing residential housing to meet the growth and
demand of an area in Union County experiencing significant population growth A "No Build" option would not meet the project
goals of providing necessary housing to meet the current demand Therefore, the No Build Alternative was eliminated from
further consideration
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts wherever possible and includes only one sewer crossing to
provide sewer service for the proposed subdivision The proposed sanitary sewer crossing will cross Stream B (Duck Creek)
and no other stream or wetland impacts are proposed Duck Creek is subject to Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Rules
The sewer crossing will be at a perpendicular angle to the stream and the temporary construction width will not exceed 40
feet The permanent maintained portion of the right-of-way corridor will not exceed 15 feet in width In accordance with the
Goose Creek Buffer Rules , the sewer ROW is outside the 200 foot buffer as required by the Goose Creek Buffer Rules, and
only crosses the 200 ft buffer at a perpendicular angle (Figure 7, attached) Under these rules, the sewer crossing as
designed is allowable as the Buffer conditions are met
The currently proposed site plan was developed as a result of this alternatives analysis and avoidance and minimization
process We believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U S to the greatest extent practicable
Page 8 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

1b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
mpacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U S have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters Construction activities and
impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U S will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality
Certification No 3890 All work will be constructed in the dry No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply) ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
3c Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
4b Stream mitigation requested
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
4f Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
4h Comments
15. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Type I Quantity
❑ Yes
linear feet
❑ warm ❑ cool
square feet
0 acres
acres
acres
■ ..
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Page 9 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
6c 6d 6e
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 I 1 5
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? >24 %
2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ❑ No
2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why
2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
Stormwater Management Plan will be submitted to NCDWR for review
2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply)
3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply)
4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Certified Local Government
® DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
❑ Yes ® No
❑
Coastal counties
❑
HQW
❑
ORW
❑
Session Law 2006-246
❑
Other
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 1 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality
3b If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description
The project will not result in additional future development
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
Sewer will tie into existing infrastructure
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted ❑ Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on November 19,
2015 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat
located within the project area Based on this review, there are no records of federally -protected species within the
project limits A copy of the data review report is attached The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is requesting
the documentation of amount of wooded acres cleared in connection with any construction project that takes place within
any county shown on the June 30, 2015 White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map, attached The majority of the project
takes place in Union County, which is not within the within White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone However, a small portion
of the project area, the sanitary sewer connection corridor, is located within Mecklenburg County Mecklenburg County is
within the Northern long-eared bat habitat range Due to the nature of this construction project, clearing within
Mecklenburg County is minimal
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitats ❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries http //sharpfin nmfs noaa gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ® No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain? I ® Yes ❑ No
8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements There will be no changes in impervious surface within the FEMA
100 -year floodplain and there will be no above grade fill
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No 3710552200L
Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
zT, C_
Applicant/Agent's Signature
12-1-15
Date
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: //////5 [Project/Site:1�be / rC'A�-Y3
Evaluator: 11V I4 Z_Y_9s County:
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle on
Stream is at'least intermittent 30-S Ephemeral Intermittent er nni
if z19 or perennial if z 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = t �_ ',5 )
Absent
10 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3 In -channel structure. ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
1
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active/relict floodplain
A
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
8 Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No =Q
a artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = �}
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14 Leaf litter
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = 0—)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22 Fish (�
23. Crayfish 0
24 Amphibians
25. Algae 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
`perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Latitude: J 5, t/, / �� q -
Longitude: Longitude: — 8 , S 529
Other lj C p
e g. Quad Name: S;t 6e"
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
05
2
3
(9)
2
3
1
Other = 0
3
1.5
0.5
p
1.5
Yes =3
1
3
Qa
2
3
1
0.5
0
1
15
0.5
15
Yes =©
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
3
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
4:5>
1
1.5
05
1
1.5
&9
1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: //////5 Project/Site: Ak,6
Evaluator: �UJ� L� �J County: %/1%0/1
Total Points: Stream Determination' ircle one)
Stream Is at least intermittent
If>_ 19 or perennial If �: 30" Ephemeral termitte erennial
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= /I/ S ) I Absent
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In -channel structure. ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
0
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active/relict floodplain
(0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No =0
a artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
i1i
I 2
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
CO
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
Moderate
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C
19. Rooted upland plants in streambedj
®
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
22. Fish
®
23. Crayfish
I
24 Amphibians
1
25 Algae
3
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
-perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes
2 1
Sketch:
Latitude: 3 S. /- >/ � 6 �
Longitude: M, J 9 �,Q8
IOther � tt 2
e g, Quad Name: 5 0 Cpn
Weak
Moderate
1
Strong
1
®
3
+�
2
3
®
2
I
3
1
®
3
1
2
3
n
2 1
3
i1i
I 2
3
3
1
15
0.5
D
1.5
Yes =3
((�
2
3
1
2
3
1
0.5
0
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Yes (L3�
2 1 0
2 1 0
® 2 3
1 2 3
0.5 1 1.5
0.5 1 1.5
05 1 1.5
0.5 1 1 5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: // / 1 % j / 5 Project/Site. 4S4 A4M
Evaluator: '4V K) /vl County:
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one)
Stream is at least intermittent 0, Ephemeral Intermittent Brenn°
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30" OV
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 2-1 ) Absent
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In -channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
9, Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No ='0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
G
2
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = J )
0.5
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14 Leaf litter
r1j)
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Bioloqy (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 40
22. Fish
23. Crayfish 0
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual
Notes:
I
Sketch.
Latitude: 3 5' 6 �/Z 51
Longitude: —
Other S C y 5
eg Quad Name: 5bt__\
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1
2
C3
1
2
,0
1
2
(0
1
2
0.5 1
®
2
�I
2
3
�.y
2
3
IV
2
3
0.5
1
1
Q 1
1.5
Yeses
1
2
ID
2
3
1
05
0
05
1
/P'Sj 1
05
15
Yes
2 1
0
2 1
0
1 - e2)
3
1 2
3
05 1
15
40) 1
1.5
05 1
15
0.5 1
15
FACW = 0 75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region %
Project/Site. Ash( / /t ci cr 0u S City/County J)'j oo'-' Sampling Date//I � S I r/ "/
Applicant/Owner. �� Z lam)' nG �(/4{�0� " ^� 50V I'C{s State, NZ Sampling Point: 'M-k-t-T�c(
Investigator(s) /I Vey L:4 Section, Township, Range: (fv{'Ck
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc.): }-CrY t L Local relief (concave, convex, none): n o ^Z Slope (%)• 0l Z
l
Lat. - 8 U. �S 9� 3 Z Datum: Al K3
I R
Subregion (LRR or / 5 6 S 0 `I Long: /(J
Soil Map Unit Name: 13gdt­, NWlclassiriicauon•
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typicalv
for this time of year? Yes `` No JJ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 11� No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area j, -
Hydric Sod Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No —r
Remarks: 1
V,/ 01 Y --e a
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired:
check all that aoolvl
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)OXldlzed
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (61)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Agwtard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
lr
6-3
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches)-
Water Table Present? Yes No-__
Depth (inches)- 6"
Saturation Present? Yes X No
rr
Depth (inches)- 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
+l�.�l �[� �ito��5
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DSI_
U Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species (A)
1 F+3 "`X`^` S /! �iv� Sy�l t �+ "C 2 C� _ r-146 i That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC,
2, J U l /1 QSc �C�n 0 (S L
3 "h C � ��h� f,'^ Total Number of Dominant
/7 �� G Species Across All Strata: (B)
4
5 Percent of Dominant Species a 4
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 / (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence index worksheet:
= Total Cover Q Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv:
50% of total cover: ZZ. S 20% of total cover. l OBL species x 1 =
Saolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size. ! .S 1 FACW species x 2 =
1L: 4 S1'6tr, 5; nl.�c� � / �'/fCu FAC species x 3 =
2 FACU species x 4 =
3 UPL species x 5 =
4 Column Totals- (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9. 1
50% of total cover -
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 0 L )
1. LaYtx lc,�t..�c�
2. Lo,1tUY� i�Voncccti
4. %oXrC� `rte -L -e-,_ r
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10
11.
� = Total Cover
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
F�
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
-�
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
50% of total cover: Z U
Wood Vine Stratum (Plot size: f .7 )
1. 0�1 1 t,.? ' C_ /"e 0, e C
2 %r� (I d-Pn�c���
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover-
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
L/ height.
i)
3.
4. Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
�= Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
-14 �' ✓l._
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: Del-ti'''e114
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
'Type. C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains ZLocation: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Matrix,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbrnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type*
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks-
)/i de � o� s
))
-r�� �) � d i r c S c>
U a e /!9 -e k-,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: A S� �r 4 do -ns City/County: Sampling Date: % LIZ
Applicant/Owner: 0( Vc (9
1"4n St u Vi t "S State. P- Sampling Point:
Investigator(s). AVN k-L_Z /�-� Section, Township, Range: 6, r /
V-cp—ic
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.):1 (t Local relief (concave, convex, none)): n0 "� Slope (%): U - Z"
Subregion (LRR or L�n: 5L LaC -3S- Lyong: �n 0, 1 T� Z 8 Datum: IV
Soil Map Unit Name: ar� � C%iv,, e S) �� ��"�, Z " p�%' S� NWI classification: IVA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1� No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No� Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nom
Remarks:
p�►4r-(�' -6 c�s,� ��� �o�, - jell'
f/' a W--cr- .
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired.
check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No I'L Depth (inches)- Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NO---k--
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available -
Remarks:
st ,. /
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:Z^��1�rr�
I Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3D ) % Cover Species? St
atus Number
Number of Dominant Species i
1. % r"n� rJr_ -D- S Vv -c-4 /�-1 re a, Z-0 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: G. (A)
2. L-' � G�.. c%4 --, 6"1 S �(Z C l /4t,, (�
i
3.
4.
(B)
5.
6.
(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: _
SaDlino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: S 1
2. �ti a//C_I-Ld
4. I l /J�/e f_
5. (J
6.
7.
8.
9.
3 = Total Cover
1 S 20% of total cover: 6
S = Total Cover
50% of total cover: Z 6. �f total cover: /0.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: / o / )
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species q
/
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC-
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv.
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
)s 1*4 -Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2. ,/i• S�) .U, • �.--� ,nl`,.{� n cam. r -y, � � �V
3 G�� 1 <� 9c i o n r` C2 �/ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
/ r be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4. t` CS 0k,P A_ Syr, _ ) Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5. U
6.
7.
8.
9
10.
11.
�= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 200/. of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Piot size: )
1.
2
3
4
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
t�- c
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 it (1,
m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
heiqht.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No / -
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point:1dPZ-zV1,d
Profile Description- (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Colo (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks
U -Z lo �k1 %� 7a6 (nom
2_/0 4. S y, i Ct -FffT- row
/0'zo 'Z. S N6 160 (� -
'TVwe: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pare Lininq, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (39) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Depth (inches). Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Remarks:
Wo i,,dr(,4.,S
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Pat McCrory Bryan Gossage Susan Kluttz
Governor Executive Director Secretary
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
November 19, 2015
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
aliisa@cws-inc net
RE Ashe Meadows, 2015-3534
NCNHDE-985
Dear Aliisa Harjuniemi
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary submitted
with your request for information These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences'
table and map
Also attached is a table summarizing rare species and natural communities that have been documented
within a one -mile radius of the project boundary The proximity of these records suggests that these natural
heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is included for
reference In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that
we may update our records Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile
radius, if any, are also included in this report
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications
Maps of NC Natural Heritage Program data may not be redistributed without permission from the NCNHP
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence
if a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or an occurrence of a Federally -
listed species is documented within or near the project area
Thank you for your inquiry If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need
additional assistance, please contact John Finnegan at iohn.finneaan anncdenr.a4y or 919 707 8630
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Ashe Meadows
Project No. 2015-3534
November 19, 2015
NCNHDE-985
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
axonomic EO ID' Scientific. Name Common Nar* 1'%-° _ Last Elernent,- a Accuracy Federal State, = 'Global State
Group P Observation Occurrencet� Status Status. Rank Rank
>;
Date Status
Freshwater 10088 Vdlosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell 2010-07-20 Current 3-Medium Species of Endangered G2 S3
Bivalve Concern
Natural Areas Documented Within Project Area
Site Name - Representational Rating Collective•Ratiny
YAD/Goose Creek Aquatic Habitat n/a (Not Applicable) C3 (High)
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos //ncnhde. natu reserve. ora/content/helo Data query generated on November 19, 2015, source NCNHP, Q4 October 2015 Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Ashe Meadows
Project No. 2015-3534
November 19, 2015
NCNHDE-985
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
axonomic
EO ID i : Scientific.Name
Common:Name _ Last E_ ,;,1_
Element -I-
Accuracy : ` Federal =
State:{
Global. ,State.
Group:
`'
.
f .Observation Occurrence
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
r Status j
Status},
Rank 'Rank
State
Dater
status`'
2
1
Freshwater
21454 Lasmlgona decorata
Carolina Heelsplitter 2009-03-09
Current
3 -Medium Endangered
Endangered
G1 S1
Bivalve
Freshwater
12588 Strophitus undulatus
Creeper 2000-05-24
Current
3 -Medium ---
Threatened
G5 S3
Bivalve
Freshwater
14250 Villosa delumbis
Eastern Creekshell 2012-08-03
Current
3 -Medium ---
Significantly
G4 S4
Bivalve
Rare
Freshwater
10088 Vdlosa vaughaniana
Carolina Creekshell 2010-07-20
Current
3 -Medium Species of
Endangered
G2 S3
Bivalve
Concern
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile
Radius of the Project Area
Site Name -
Representational, Rating
Collective Rating,
YAD/Goose Creek
Aquatic Habitat
n/a (Not Applicable)
C3 (High)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Nance r -
_ ' Owner .
Owner Type
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Easement
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
State
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Easement
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
State
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Easement
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
State
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Easement
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https.//ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/hel2 Data query generated on November 19, 2015, source NCNHP, Q4 October 2015 Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database
Page 3 of 4

a
�d 411;
0a�`�� aye \vat
232 mI� t
.i
NCNHDE-985: Ashe Meadows
November 19, 2015 1:27,687
❑ Project Boundary ❑ Managed Area (MAREA) D 0.2 1. 25 0.45 0.9 mi
`
❑ Buffered Project Boundary 0 0.3L — 1.5 km
Sources: Evi, HERE, OaLoma, IM—P, vrcrement P Corp.. GEBCO.
NHP Natural Area (N H NA) USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBese, IGN, Kadamw NL, Orerrnce Survey,
Page 4 of 4
x
I 7
M
C
y
C
V � /
NCNHDE-985: Ashe Meadows
November 19, 2015 1:27,687
❑ Project Boundary ❑ Managed Area (MAREA) D 0.2 1. 25 0.45 0.9 mi
`
❑ Buffered Project Boundary 0 0.3L — 1.5 km
Sources: Evi, HERE, OaLoma, IM—P, vrcrement P Corp.. GEBCO.
NHP Natural Area (N H NA) USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBese, IGN, Kadamw NL, Orerrnce Survey,
Page 4 of 4

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Northern d Long -Eared Bat Interim 4
g () Rule
White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts
..;♦
i
Y
IL
Map Created June 30, 2015
Counties/Districts with WNS/Pd
Infected Hibernacula
White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone
Per Interim 4(d) Rule
U.S. counties within 150 miles of positive
counties/districts (Data as of 06/30/15,
additional updates expected)
'( Northern Long -Eared Bat Range
(As of 04/30/2015)
- Northern Long -Eared Bat range and WNS Buffer
Zone subject to change as new data are collected.
WNS = White -Nose Syndrome
I Pd = Pseudogymnoascus destructans; the
fungus that causes WNS
l-^-1 50300 - ./ 450 - ii 600 0 -,lr\ Coordinate System: WNS Counties/Districts Data Provided By:
_j North America Equidistant Conic Pennsylvania Game Commission
Miles t `b Datum: North American 1983 Basemap Data: USGS
- _� 1

t b�
It Sm 4-'.
'AIL v At
1 , � . •► 1 M' � . r ` ,,(7 -(Fig}', ..
y►�. +Y !'.'S~ .���' ,'f �jF �1 Yd`
•r {
'-
• 1� ..

i
J�`L}+
a• **11 "
`i'
rM N1' - ..r�•* Y♦ '� tom. 7 "G.

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 - BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder F-1 Assign Action ID Number in ORM FI
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Ashe Meadows
2. Work Type: Private Fv—(] Institutional 11 Government Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 63d and Be]:
The purpose of this project is to develop the property into a single-family residential subdivision.
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Carolina Development Services: Mr. Johnathan McCall
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 65b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Bib]:
Located north of the Fairview Road -Rock Hill Church Road intersection in Union County, North
Carolina
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 61a]: multiple
9. Project Location—County [PCN Form A2b]: Union and Mecklenburg County
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Indian Land and Mint Hill
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 62a]: Duck Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 62c]: Yadkin (HUC 03040105)
Authorization: Section 10 F1 Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 29
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
17 Section 10 & 404
_ Pre -Application Request
— Unauthorized Activity
_ Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
December 1, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
and Water Quality Certification No. 3890
Ashe Meadows
Union County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015-3534
Dear Mr Elliott and Ms. Higgins:
The Ashe Meadows site is approximately 78 acres in extent and is located north of the Fairview Road -Rock
Hill Church Road intersection in Union County, North Carolina (Figure 1, attached). The purpose of this
project is to develop a residential subdivision in a developing area of Union County. Carolina Development
Services, LLC, has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401
permitting services for this project. An executed Agent Authorization Form is attached.
Applicant Name: Carolina Development Services, LLC; POC: Mr. Johnathan McCall
Mailing Address: 2627 Breckenridge Centre Drive, Monroe, NC 28110
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-401-7185
Street Address of Project: north of the Fairview Road -Rock Hill Church Road intersection in Union
Co., North Carolina
Waterway: Duck Creek, UT to Duck Creek
Basin: Yadkin (HUC 03040105)
Nearest Municipality or Town: Indian Land, Union Co. and Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Co.
County: Union
Tax Parcel ID Numbers: Union County: 08279001 and 08306001; Mecklenburg County: 19717319
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.171404°, -80.594328°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Midland, NC (1996)
Site Conditions
The project area consists of forested areas and fields. Typical on-site vegetation includes white oak
(Quercus alba), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), black oak (Quercus velutina), post oak (Quercus stellata),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), greenbrier (Smilax rotund folia), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), Carolina
shagbark hickory (Carya carolinae-septentrionahs), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and eastern red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

Ashe Meadows December 1, 2015
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015-3534
According to the Soil Surveys of Union and Mecklenburg Counties' (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on-site soils
consist of Georgeville silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded (GeD2), Goldston very
channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (GoB), Goldston very channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
(GoD), Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (BaB), Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
CmB, Goldston-Badin complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes (GsB), and Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes (TaB). None of the on-site soils are listed as having hydric inclusions in the North Carolina Hydric
Soils List for Union and Mecklenburg Counties2, nor are they listed as hydric soils on the National Hydric
Soils List for Union and Mecklenburg Counties.3
Jurisdictional Delineation
On January 11 and November 18, 2015, CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, Wetland Professional in
Training (WPIT), Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio, WPIT, and Kaitlin McCullough, Staff Scientist 1,
delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the project area (Figure 5, attached).
Jurisdictional areas were delineated (flagged in the field), classified, and surveyed with a sub -foot Trimble
Geo7X GPS using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Routine On -Site Determination Method.
This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual4, the 2007 USACE
Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebooks, with further technical guidance from the
Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplement, dated April 2012. A Wetland Determination Data
Form representative of on-site wetland areas is attached as DPI. A Wetland Determination Data Form
representative of on-site non jurisdictional upland areas is attached as DP2. The locations of these data
points are identified as DPI and DP2 on Figure 5 (attached)
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D -shaped dip net,
taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on-site stream channel.
Results
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are two jurisdictional
stream channels (Streams A and B) and two jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands AA and BB) located
within the project area (Figure 5, attached). On -Site jurisdictional waters include Duck Creek and an un-
named tributary (UT) to Duck Creek. Duck Creek is part of the Yadkin River basin (HUC 03040105)' and
is rated "Class C Waters" by the NCDWR. According to the NCDWR, Class C Waters are defined as:
"Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture "
On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.18 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, including
553 linear feet (If) of jurisdictional stream channel. On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are summarized
in Table 1, next page.
Table 1. Summary of on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
'United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2013 Soil Surveys of Union and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina
2 United States Department of Agriculture —Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA-NRCS
North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
' USDA-NRCS Hydric Soils List, http //soils usda gov/use/hydric/lists/state html, updated 2014
Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
' USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 2007 USACE Regulatory National Standard Operating Procedures for
conducting an approved Jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC
'US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi
' "HUC" is the Hydrologic Unit Code U S Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
2

Ashe Meadows
December 1, 2015
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29
and WOC 3890
CWS Proiect
No. 2015-3534
,,EStream,,r
"PerenniaU,,`' "
NCDWR Stream,;• ;
Length;
Acreage
Jurisdictional ;';`.° Classiflcation'
f `
Clas'si'fication
'Linear• Feet
Feature, Intermittent,, 5 .'' Point,(
(�
ac.),
_ (SCP)'coce
- :...
Perennial SCP1 305 182 0.01
Stream A RPW
Intermittent SCP2 25 264 001
RPW
Stream B Perennial SCP3 40.5 107 0.02
(Duck Creek) RPW
Stream Total- 553 If 0.04 ac.
Data•:Point� ,Acreage,- rt
r '°) ",Juri'sdictional,Feature
Wetland AA DPI 002
Wetland BB DPI 0 12
Wetland Total: 0.14 ac.
Total,Acreage: 4.0:1$ ac:
Perennial Streams
Perennial streams are those that typically have year-round flow. These streams typically have greater
biological resources than intermittent streams, and are capable of supporting those resources that
require perennial flow. This section describes the on-site perennial streams and the field observations
supporting this determination.
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are two perennial stream
channels (Streams A and B) located within the project area (Figure 5, attached).
Stream A originates on site in the eastern portion of the property and flows southeast for approximately 446
linear feet (10 within the project boundaries. The lower 1821f of Stream A is classified as a perennial
stream. Perennial Stream A (R5UB2') exhibits moderate continuity of bed and bank, moderate baseflow,
moderate sinuosity, weak presence of depositional bars and benches, and a weak presence of iron oxidizing
bacteria. Biological sampling within Perennial Stream A revealed a weak presence of macrobenthos and
crayfish. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present year around in typical year.
Perennial Stream A scored 30.5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form,
indicating perennial status (SCP1, attached). Photograph A (attached) is representative of the perennial
portion of the Stream A.
Stream B (Duck Creek) originates off site in the northwestern comer of the project limits and flows northeast
for approximately 1071f before continuing off site Perennial Stream B (R5UB2) exhibits strong continuity
of bed and bank, strong baseflow, strong sinuosity of channel, weak presence of depositional bars and
benches, and a weak presence of iron oxidizing bacteria. Biological sampling within Perennial Stream B
revealed a moderate presence of macrobenthos and weak presence of crayfish. Stream characteristics
indicate that continuous flow is present year around in typical year. Perennial Stream B scored 40.5 out of a
possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP3, attached).
Photograph B (attached) is representative of the Perennial Stream B.
" R5UB2 = Perennial stream with unconsolidated sand bottom, Cowardm et al Classification System, 1979
3

Ashe Meadows December 1, 2015
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015-3534
Intermittent Streams
Intermittent streams are those streams that exhibit continuous flow seasonally. This flow regime is the result
of a lowering of the water table during dry periods that stops groundwater discharge to the stream channel.
Intermittent streams do not typically support aquatic life requiring year-round flow to support reproductive
and maturation stages.
Intermittent Stream A originates on site in the eastern portion of the project area and flows southeast for
approximately 264 linear feet (If) until continuing as a perennial stream. Intermittent Stream A (R4UB29)
exhibits moderate continuity of bed and banks, weak in -channel structure, weak baseflow, and weak
sinuosity. Biological sampling within Stream A revealed a weak presence of macrobenthos. Stream
characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present at least three months in typical year. Intermittent
Stream A scored a 25 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating
intermittent status (SCP2, attached). Photograph C (attached) is representative of the intermittent portion of
Stream A.
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as "Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions."10 The USACE uses three parameters to identify jurisdictional wetlands. These parameters are
asfollows: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) wetland hydrology, and 3) hydric soils. Except in certain atypical
situations, all three parameters must be present in order for an area to be determined to be a jurisdictional
wetland. This section describes each on-site jurisdictional wetland and the field observations that led to their
determinations.
Wetlands AA and BB exhibit low chroma soils, oxidized rhizospheres, and saturation to the surface.
Dominant vegetation for Wetlands AA and BB include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow
(Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and shallow sedge (Carex lurida).
Wetlands AA and BB are classified as forested wetlands (PFO1"). Figure 5 (attached) depicts the locations
of these wetlands. A Wetland Determination Data Form 1 (DPI, attached) is representative of Wetlands AA
and BB. Photographs D and E (attached) are representative of Wetlands AA and BB, respectively.
Non -Jurisdictional Pond
There is one man-made pond located within the project area (Figure 5, attached). The pond is
excavated entirely in non -jurisdictional upland areas and has no upstream or downstream connection to
jurisdictional waters of the U S. (Photograph F, attached).
Agency Correspondence
Protected Species
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data
Explorer" on November 19, 2015 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate
endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on this review,
there are no records of federally -protected species within the project limits. However, the NCNHP
database shows a record for Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate) within a mile of the project
site A copy of the data review report is attached.
R4UB2 = Intermittent stream with unconsolidated sand bottom, Cowardm et al Classification System, 1979
0 Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
" PFOI = Forested Broad-leaved Wetland, Cowardm et al Classification System, 1979
'' North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https //ncnhde natureserve org/ Accessed November 19, 2015
4

Ashe Meadows December 1, 2015
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015-3534
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is requesting the documentation of amount of wooded
acres cleared in connection with any construction project that takes place within any county shown on
the June 30, 2015 White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map, attached The majority of the project
takes place in Union County, which is not within the within White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone.
However, a small portion of the project area, the sanitary sewer connection corridor, is located within
Mecklenburg County. Mecklenburg County is within the Northern long-eared bat habitat range. Due
to the nature of this construction project, clearing within Mecklenburg County is minimal.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 78 acres of property into a single-family
subdivision located in Union County, North Carolina (Figure 6, attached). Union County is
experiencing rapid population growth due its proximity to Charlotte, Mint Hill, and Matthews and
there is a need for residential housing in order to meet the current demand. There are no impacts
associated with the construction of the interior roads and lots within the subdivision itself, however
minimal temporary impacts are proposed in order to provide sewer service to the new subdivision via
one sewer crossing. This project is not a phased project and adjoining subdivisions are all owned by
individuals and/or companies not associated with the Ashe Meadows project.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. Construction activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with
all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890. All work will be
constructed in the dry. Temporary impacts have been limited 46 If of jurisdictional stream channel and
no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed.
In an attempt to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters while still meeting the goals of the project, a "No
Build" alternative was considered. The property was purchased for the purpose of providing residential
housing to meet the growth and demand of an area in Union County experiencing significant population
growth. A "No Build" option would not meet the project goals of providing necessary housing to meet the
current demand. Therefore, the No Build Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts wherever possible and includes only one sewer
crossing to provide sewer service for the proposed subdivision. The proposed sanitary sewer crossing will
cross Stream B (Duck Creek) and no other stream or wetland impacts are proposed Duck Creek is subject
to Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Rules.
The sewer crossing will be at a perpendicular angle to the stream and the temporary construction width will
not exceed 40 feet. The permanent maintained portion of the right-of-way corridor will not exceed 15 feet in
width. In accordance with the Goose Creek Buffer Rules13, the sewer ROW is outside the 200 foot buffer as
required by the Goose Creek Buffer Rules, and only crosses the 200 ft buffer at a perpendicular angle
(Figure 7, attached) Under these rules, the sewer crossing as designed is allowable as the Buffer conditions
are met.
The currently proposed site plan was developed as a result of this alternatives analysis and avoidance and
minimization process. We believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the project
goals while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent practicable.
"15A NCAC 02B 0607, Goose Creek Buffer Rule

Ashe Meadows December 1, 2015
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015-3534
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 29, unavoidable temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters
associated with this project are limited to a total of 46 linear feet (If) of jurisdictional stream channel
(Stream B). Impacts to Stream B (Duck Creek) are the result of the construction of a sewer crossing
and are subject to Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Rules. Figure 6 (attached) depicts the proposed
subdivision layout overview and proposed impacts are summarized in Table 2 (below).
Table 2. Proposed impacts to ,jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
-Temporary
Jurisdictional ,Impacts " Mitigation;
Iinpact,Type'--``'' ; ,w`or = -� Ampacts,(Acre)u ;,ux�
<<,s
Feature 4: z �(lineaiafeet)6 �xReguireih,=m
riermanent"'€
Sanitary sewer
Stream B crossing Temporary 46 0.01 No
(perpendicular)
,.,Tehmt1orary - s
rx' =t •,J `•, a? ex, ';,,< r
rRipaiian�� 1Vlitigatiou,
Buffer' Impact`Type (linear feet) ;Impacts (acne)` Required?
Permanent _ - a. -
Sanitary sewer
crossing
022
(perpendicular). Temporary 25
No
(9,425 sq. ft.)
Temporary
Disturbance
Goose Creek
Sanitary sewer
crossing
0.13
(perpendicular): Permanent 15
No
(5,655 sq ft )
Maintenance
Easement
Total Ripariari'Buffer Disturbance:
0.35 ac: (15,080 sq. ft.) -
Sewer Crossing
Proposed impacts consist of 46 linear feet of temporary impacts to Stream B (Duck Creek). An 8 -inch
gravity -fed, ductile cast iron pipe (DIP) will be installed via an open cut, beneath Stream B (Figure 6,
attached). Perpendicular crossings that "disturb equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer with a
maintenance corridor greater than 10 feet in width are allowable with NCDWR approval" according to the
Goose Creek buffer rules.
The proposed sanitary sewer crossing is located in the northeastern portion of the property (Figure 6,
attached). The installation of the 8 -inch DIP at a perpendicular angle will result in 46 if of temporary
impacts to Perennial Stream B and approximately 0.35 acre disturbance within the Goose Creek Buffer
(Figure 7, attached). Proposed impacts are minimal.
All areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to preconstruction contours. All impacted stream
banks shall be stabilized with rip rap below the high water mark (not to exceed one cubic yard per
running foot) and plantings above the high water mark. Stabilized stream banks shall include all bank
areas disturbed by the work. Banks shall be restored to their original contours. The stream banks shall
be stabilized with biodegradable coir fiber matting or other coconut fiber matting. Plantings shall
consist of dormant native live stakes conforming to the Mecklenburg County SWIM requirements, and

Ashe Meadows December 1, 2015
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015-3534
shall be installed in the winter during the period from November to March. The live stakes shall be
planted so that buds point upward and approximately 2 to 3 inches of wood is above the ground. At
least three buds on each stake should be installed below ground to encourage root growth. Live stake
species should include silky dogwood (Cornus amomun), silky willow (Salix sericea), and elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis) only.
On behalf of Carolina Development Services, CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction Notification
Application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31, and
pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3890.
Compensatory Mitigation
No permanent stream impacts are proposed for this project. Perpendicular crossings that temporarily
disturb equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer with a permanent maintenance corridor
greater than 10 feet in width but less than 401f width do not require mitigation. The permanent
maintained easement for this project is 15 feet wide. Therefore no compensatory mitigation is required
for this project.

Ashe Meadows December 1, 2015
Pre -Construction Notification to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WOC 3890 CWS Proiect No. 2015-3534
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-408-1683, or through email at [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this request
Sincerely,
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
fa� -A"�
Kelly Thames, WPIT
Project Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2. Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 3. Current USDA-NRCS Union and Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 4. Historic USDA-NRCS Union and Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 5. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 6. Proposed Impacts - Overview
Figure 7. Proposed impacts
Agent Authorization Form
Preliminary JD Form
Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
NCDWR Stream Classification Form (SCP 1-SCP3)
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP I-DP2)
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs (A -F)
cc Mr. Jonathan McCall, Carolina Development Services
Mr. Matthew Velkovich, P.E., Summit

Cbk
•�t+ 5` ,r r ,--� 1\ •• � ,�.s:' r'� :. E
49.1
700
fidd
..�
.r
700
550,
_ .� -�� - -. 650 . e t ;•yi-�. _ �a�.. ' j � ...
" Fairview Road y .
1 ---106 s
/ dd `�e F c
r ,a. GO/v �f t:3l�.y �. q ••+� 218 1
00
�►' r "-\ °. 'lam
Rock Hill Church Road
Legend
650 0 / 9 • '� b. " �� .----`�
Project Limits
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
71PERENCE i 5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE. MIDLAND, NC (1996)
SCALE. 1" . 2000' DATE: 11-17-15
® USGS Site Location Map FIGURE. NO.
CWS PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: n` H
2015-3534 / 1V fl lshe Meadows
CAROLINA
APPLICANT NO'. CHECKED BY. werLnNo SERVICES Union Co., North Carolina
KMT CNVS Project No. 2015-3534

REFERENCE: BACKROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI ACCESSED 2015.
r
Iiia .
SCALE: rr 1 DATE-.
1 .500 11-17-15
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: AUH
2015-3534
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY. KMT CAROLINA
WETLAND ERNA
Legend
® Project Limits
Roads
Parcels
500 250 0 500 Feet
Aerial Imagery Map FIGURE NO.
Ashe Meadows2
Union Co., North Carolina /
CWS Project No. 2015-3534

.
Ge
132
62
�\
MeD i MeB
P, E)
PaE
\ /
FCeD2 \HeB1; '
�� eB2 \1 �� GeD2 - G
GeD2
GeD2 - BaB
CeD2
i Cm
MeD
Ge82 ChA
Me6 � GoD Tab
PaE
a � Ge62
BaB
CmB
BaB
BaB
TbB2
.
BaBils
- Description
tGoB—Goldston
Legend
D2—Georgeville silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
ChA
very channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Project Limits
D—Goldston very channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BaB—Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
County Line
CmB—Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
—
GsB—Goldston-Badin complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Roads
TaB—Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
m
�'
REFERENCE: CURRENT USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF UNION AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES, DATED 20 14.
0 Fe
1,000 500 0 1,00et
SCALE: 1" : 1000' DATE 11-17-15
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:®
Current USDA-NRCS Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
of Union and Mecklenburg County
2015-3534 AVH
Ashe Meadows 3
CAROLINA
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY: WETLAND SEFVICES
Union Co., North Carolina
\\ KMT
CIVS Proie,ct Nln '?01'�-3534

v
CeB2 P� a
f M e D ��oQ o
C-7
J Lae
CeQPa �cA'IQi
? �.s
Q Ge62 GeD2 GaD
nD �O '
=�
GCC ` BaC
GeR2 GeD2 G r. '
ems' Heb GeR2 a
Ba
MO LgB ! G, -;B Jac � ,r
Lge CMB ChA
{ 11 BaB
o
GeD2
N10 id
BAC
B
12 Mt? Fairview Road E � �' Bab
�Pa GQB,�
�, �o Gam° • ens �� � 8d82 enc
r
Lg8 1, �Q O'�e CmB
a
M0 218 Bab G BBaC Ba B
' BaB ChA
GeS2 Pp CMB BdB CmB �' T-
GoG A f
& 118 BaB TaC
� HaB CMB Bab CMB ChA
Tb -B2
�r.- e B 2cc BaB Rockhill Church Road 8d9?
G
Ba
Soils - Description _ Ba
/ GeD2—Georgeville silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded g
GoB—Goldston very channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GoD—Goldston very channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Legend
BaB—Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes I -
CmB—Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes ChA Cm Project Limits
GsB—Goldston-Badin complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
TaB—Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes County Line 1
I -
REFERENCE: HISTORIC USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF UNION COUNTY, SHEETS 1 AND 5, DATED 1990 j nX 500 0 1,000 Feet
HISTORIC USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, SHEET 9, DATED 1976.
SCALE: 1" : 1000' DATE. 11-17-15 Historic USDA-NRCS Soil Survey
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: n` H of Union and Mecklenburg County
2015-3534 V I I CAROLINA Ashe Meadows 4
APPLICANT N0: CHECKED BY:�nIV' nI WE7LAN0 SERV'CES Union Co., North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015-3534

1 nkLzrton ct
O
A P3
Perennial RPW Stream B (Duck Creek)
whit IAsh Ct
107 If
LI?
))Fcl�_V(�e
A\
<
Intermittent RPW Stream A
% `�_I/f'_.' � 4e` � � : >� ��� ��)/�, �, � � ) - 264 If
L
C)
N
C) Intew1fterd/Perennfal Breakpoint
'mow
/G_�
ry
Wetland BIB
0.12 ac.
, Ih
CD
P
Perennial RPW Stream A
182 If
P 2 In
DPI
Legend
Project Limits
Ra Non -jurisdictional pond
0.28 ac. Perennial stream
....... Intermittent Stream
Wetland Wetland
'a n 7dA A
)2
2 ac
A ac. Pond
ii1eill County Line
Roads
. ......... Sycamore Club Dr Photo Point
0 DI, Data Point
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIs LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG AND UNION COUNTY GIs ASCP Stream Classification Point
DEPARTMENTS, DATED 2012
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, 500 250 0 500 Feet
AND SURVEYED USING SUB -FOOT GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC. ON JANUARY 11 AND NOVEMBER 18, 2015
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
IA
SCALE: 1": 500' DATE. 11-19-15 Approximat:JUr1dicfiona1 FIGURE NO.
CM PROJECT NO DRAWN BY. Boundary Map
2015-3534 AVH ONAshe Meadows 5
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY CAR D SERLIVICESA Union Co., North Carolina
KMT CWS Project No. 2015-3534

(� ,\✓moi
•��\—ill-
�, SUMMIT
\\ / /(1/ \`\\.�f///^ ,\\\ j J/// //Zil ( ', - l�/ \ l 1 \ •__r - .�. ._. .�.. \ r ///�- LAND S7".P.C.
P.O. WX2
FIGURE 7:
-
_ \ \ \ / 1)IIl 111\`✓"�/ // \ J �� �_ j i i _ _ I / \ )� ���I�• PROPOSED IMPACTS :\: jj���'` \ :.: / y � REVISIONS
lrr=1;e.?l�l
� `\/ il(/ \�=J�� i / i � _ ._ 'i — : � � � �. ` � . t ' ;-_ / .?•�� � .i/ I �.vy _r I��i �.�cl�`.i _ �\ ` J \�- �. --.�,_ •--=�J'/�� '' u,
�/--• \ / // - 1 =� = -t �"�'- \„ / l.� / s I \ zr
STREAM 8 (DUCK
q =MH-3
\•1✓ ^;` ♦` •SSMH- CREEK) I o
\ I Tr // � �j .� � Y _��f/' '.� •\ r '� ))� �J1�./ o 'J'/'t \•�� � � � •' . .1; It/ f �-, j ✓�..� � �-�\,� \ Jl��l
\ J 11 ��, / JJ � \ �_e\°�� ✓�! ! y. ~ `� • /• :/ Y ` %6`�l T l.�- 4' j ��e . �;\ :�: • 1 • ; Jj/ f �J~y /i-..-v-r'f+� 1 )1 'r/�/`°o � { l ` :( �yC� rin�L= — ' � \\\� �� _ - � _ \-� � \
-72
-
WET ND BB I / / f / = — — \ i L �_ \ — — _ \ J/// / I 1 L(/ / / — \\\\�✓ \\1 /� �eJ°— ` \ 1
-------------
CLIENT
i / X66,71
%%�
TIJGD
�' 56;64 - ` 6u / ` 66 5 /LIJ
/
`tT 1MIL
w
SSMH-- l2: , - LA. _ a I SSI
- _ SSMH$ ✓ q _ ` \ \ /' \ \ 1 // // O � O
w
w W
w U
/// // LJJ o
0
SSMH•23 Y Z
U) CC 0
00
/jFf�NTRANCE //` a6*o 2=e�0�� _ _ \\ ✓ / ` f = / / } IIII35
%ii
c
�r I l/r,•SIB\ \ =636.D0
V
PROJECT
\.
-25
630
630 Bao - _ fizs �/ \� e2v \ ///� r
1 �, �o°Y 84(1 \ \\rte ./ 625 \ \ ` -_ J \\ � /\\ �o/' J ///
\ \ \ ` — \ / �r °til s s�n6/i �\ �azs//\\ \\�. ,
\\\\� .�/ //�� � '\\ ��\� / f / o
1 } \ ) \ \ / _
\�`\\\ / 1() \\ \`\ \\/�e-'�\i\�///\\�� 1\\\\111\\\\\ PROJECT LIMITS 00
����~--era I I ^ °� �% / I I _�`� \ W �_ z
\ III\ \� �� =//\\
_ / r ^ 1 •- `' / \ � 6\5 /1111 � �\ /�\ \�\\ \\` • -�/ \ � �\ -\� cC 0 Y
) /� �\ \ I (/ \) \\ \_I1!
\1\ \\✓/ (( / )' \\\ \\ \—Ji /// /
LA
/r: I \\ `\\ / )\ \ i/ III ( \\\` w Z
W T _ I / STREAM A : j �/'' \\\ ,\ \ _
/ 1 \ /// \\ %ice �jlllll IIIIIII(I I 1J1 )) 1�► 1 Q (� o
�� Z
\\\\,� 111111
\
I,,\\ _ ////iii '� \ /�/ //- 1 1 \ \ r/r/// �\ \��i���\
� � -�\\-
/ \\\ \ = / ►�1II� "I��\_ _%// /�iii�`\�\\ �ET
1� 1\ /,/ / //r \\\� �/ ► 1 // /�/�, \� \\ \\ \\_-//�l�''\�� \ ''////r)/ �`'i 1111 '�rrj --/// /����/'•
/ J \�
\\
x�///�. J z
o PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION SEOUENCE: Q M
A. CONTACT NCDENR EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR TO INFORM THEM THAT PRASE 3 EROSION CONTROL IS COMMENCING. W O
V � Cf)
B. CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT ALL GRADING
TO ENSURE THEY ARE . S70CKPILE AREA
A FR SKIMMER AND ILL CO TI BASINS AS REQUIRED.
C. BEGIN FINAL PAD AND FINISH GRADING PEA PHASE 3 PIANS. STOCKPILE AREA AT FRONT OF SITE WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED AS NEEDED FOR EROSION CONTROL LEGEND W Q O
STOCKPILING TOPSOIL (Y
0. TEMPORARILY SEED NEW DENUDED AREAS WHERE GRADES ARE FINALIZED. DETAIL/SHEET DETAIL DETAIL DEiAIL/SHEET DETAIL O w
E. SKIMMER BASINS C AND F MAY BE REMOVED AFTER STORM SYSTEM IS FUNCTIONAL AND DRAINING TO SEDIMENT BASINS. REFERENCE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION REFERENCE SYMBOL
F. INSPECT ALL TREE PROTECTION M!D SILT FENCING AND REPAIR OR REPLACE WITH NEW FENCING AS NEEDED OR PER INSPECTOR.
6,
" G. NSTALL PROJECT WATER LINES, ROADWAY AND SIDEWALKS PER PHASE 3 PLANS. GRAPHIC SCALE
H. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN DIVERSION DRO -ES AS BEST POSSIBLE DURING PHASE 3 GRADING. SOME TEMPORARY RELOCATIONS MAY BE e PROPOSED TEMP. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION e ® PROPOSED CHECK DAM
NECESSARY. ENRRANCE/EXII m e T Im
I. MAINTAIN SITE AND EROSION CONTROL BMP'S PER PHASE 1 EROSION CONTROL NOTES ON SHEET C4.0. e
J. MI W MIZE IMPACTS TO DUCK CREEK AS BEST POSSIBLE DURING SEWER INSTALLATION AT CREEK CROSSING, EPHEMERAL STREAMS MAY BE 4- PROPOSED TEMP. EARTHEN
IMPACTED PER PLANS. SEASONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS MAY NOT BE IMPACTED OR DAMAGED. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR e ❑ PROPOSED BLOCK 9 DIVERSION DITCH
MITIGATING ANY IMPACTS OR DAMAGE TO CREEKS, SEASONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS BEYOND WHAT 1S SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION GRAVEL INLET PROTECTION
PLAe PROPOSED ROCK PIPE INLET PROTECTION
IN FF:F:T
INS.
K. ALL PERIMETER DIKES, SWALES, DITCHES, PERIMETER SLOPES AND ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 HORIZONTAL TO I VERTICAL (3:1) SHALL BE O
PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY EVENT WTTHIN 7 TOTAL DISTURBED AREA (ALL PHASES) = 40.80 ACRES xe .❑. PROPOSEDCONCRETE WASHOUT AREA
CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST IAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS SWILL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT NNa 1� oN� PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE \\\\111111////Y \\IIIIIIII//,
c LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. STABILIZATION WITH GROUND COVERSLOS SOON BE GRADED NO BUTSE EVENT WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST e ````` - ` 5(,�O`',,' `-O� 4--,
u L CONTRACTOR MAY INSTALL ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES DEEMED NECESSARY OR AS INSfRIXT® BY PROJECT ENGINEER 00. PROPOSED TEMP. SILT FENCE �� d�/yr�'- ?` -� FIGURE 6
NCDENR INSPECTOR. NOTE: BUILDING CONTRACTOR WILL NEED TO ADHERE
i M. SEE SffDING SCHEDULE FOR SEED TYPE. DATES, AND RATES. TO INDIVIDUAL LOT EROSION PLANS PER THESE PLANS``.urP sDlYlas.iTc- _
Sg, N. CALL NCDENR PO FINAL INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BEFORE REMOVING SUMMERS FROM BASINS AND CONVERTING BASINS TO PERMANENTAND DETAIL 4 ON SHEET C90 PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT PROPOSED TEMP. BAFFLE FENCE I. f R C-3126 t
DRY DETENTION FACILITIES. AFTER APPROVAL PROCEED TO REMOVE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE .e TREE PROTECTION, SILT FENCING AND ALL
REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES. OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.�,-L4�gRwc�`•r „-„?,'{R1Tc•
„ 0. NO ONSITE BURIAL OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL ALLOWED. ONSITE BURIN. PITS REQUIRE ON DEMOLITION LANDFILL PERMIT MOM e ® PROPOSED SILT FENCE OUTLET
ZONING INSPECTOR. YI/l11111111\\\\ YY//111111\1\\\ `•
7 SEAL DATE O: -01-15

0+00
7/i'A', <
1+00 2+DD 3+00 4+00 5+00
SSMH"1-
c�' PROPOSED IMPACT,
GOOSE CREEK RIPARIAN
BUFFER
-15 FT WIDE PERMANENT*
MXr.TrNANCE EASEMENT
x I �
%
Oft Stream
Buller
1100 YR. ROOD PLAIN
40' SS EASEMENT
** *
WET WELL PROPOSED IMPACT: GOOSE R
E%. * CREEK RIPARIAN BUFFER
** * -40 FT WIDE EASEMENT
PROPOSEDIMPACT: % % % t * v. * * % * %
STREAM B
- 46 LF TEMPORARY IMPACT
(SEWER CROSSING
J t
* * %
%
*
SSMn-2 �
6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
-620
—610
r
��
SUMMIT
LAND SERVICES, P.C.
O. WK x+x
CHAC
xe:u
OFFICE', )0+6x6.ze00
O1.62CISOS
W W W.SUM
MIT-COMFAMIES.COM
REVISIONS'.
S
-- 600
- -
e CLIENT'.
Z
LLJ O�
-
C]
Lu
Of
Z
(f)Lu
_O
Lu Lu Ci N
X90
:5U � C -)Lu
Lu
Q LLJ Z
zU0LUC)
CID
O
�-�/ co
I.-1_ N
Q
U
deo
PROJECT:
10+00
Z
J
U) Q
U
0 O
U)
LJ Z
C cl
m
_ = 7
ETAIL # LEGEND:
U) W o
U
EET — — — PROP. 8" SEWERLJNE
¢ Z
30' SS (SANITARY
SEWER)EASEMENT
z PROP. 4" CLFAN OIJT
ct:.l
Z
5 6
cu.t az.t O PROP. SSMH
(SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE)
KION C—DETAILS
SHEET.
nz.z cxu ctz.z
M
C DETAILS
LiJ
WU)
LL
J
CD
Z
—�O
J
u_ O
� Q
GRAPHIC SCALE
O
KE
I IN FEE? I
f +
SCALE R OJ.DATE: 0}7&15
SCALE: 1'•4O
DRAWN BY: JCW
CHECKEDBY-. MOV
\\\\\IEllillg111j' \\\01111111I/�1<1j1
oR��C5 ROS/,yy �� �J2o�L'H^' -•„�'`yyy
sEMMN
a "
CES. E
FIGURE
.
//))=�=
^7
SEALDATE 10-5-15

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Mr. Johnathan McCall, representing Carolina Development Services, LLC, hereby
certify that I have authorized Gregg Antemann of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act
on my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of
this request for wetlands determination / permitting and any and all standard and special
conditions attached for the Ashe Meadows project.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
a a"
Applicant's signature Agent's signature
It�tq�l�
Date
Date
11/19/15
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): I2/1/15
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Carolina Development Services; POC: Jonathan McCall
2627 Breckenridge Centre Drive, Monroe, NC 28110
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington District
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Located north of the Fairview Road -Rock Hill Church Road intersection In Goose Creek, North Carolina
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Union/Mecklenburg City: Indian Land, Mint Hill
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.171404 °N; Long. 80594328 °W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name Of nearest waterbody: Duck Creek, UT to Duck Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
553 linear feet: 2-10 width (ft) and/or 0.04 acres.
COwardln Class: R5UB2, R4UB2
Stream Flow: 289 if perennial, 264 If seasonal
Wetlands: 014 acres.
Cowardin Class: PF01
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:
01

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑✓ Field Determination. Date(s): January 11 and November 18, 2015
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
❑✓ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:
❑✓ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
aprlicanUconsultant.
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: 124.000, Midland, NC (1996)
aUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: union and Mecklenburg County Soil Surveys
❑ 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): Esri, accessed 2015 or
❑✓ Other (Name & Date): Site photographs of streams
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
2

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

This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarilv been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later iurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
ZT--a-12/1/15
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
4

Estimated
Amount of
Site
Cowardian
Class of Aquatic
Latitude
Longitude
Aquatic
Number
Class
Resource
Resource in
Review Area
Stream A
N35.171404
W80 594328
R5UB2
182 If
non -section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream A I
N35.171404
W80 594328
I R4UB2
264 If
non -section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream B I
N35.171404
W80 594328
I R51.1132 I
107 If
non -section 10 -- non -tidal
Wetland AA I
N35 171404
I W80.594328
I PFO1 I
0.02 acre
non -section 10 -- wetland
Wetland BB I
I
N35 171404
I W80.594328
I
PFO1 I
I
I I
0 12 acre
I
I non -section 10 -- wetland