20081155 Ver 4_Individual_20170717

LOWRYS ENVIRONMENTAL &
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC
1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Phone [phone]
14 July 2017
Ms. Karen Higgins
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: Individual Permit Application Package
Kellswater Phase 3 Development
City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Higgins:
D
Lowrys Environmental & Ecological Services, LLC, (LEES), has prepared four copies and a CD of an
Individual Permit Application Package for the Kellswater Phase 3 Development, located adjacent to
Isenhour Road, and near the intersection of Kannapolis Parkway and Rogers Lake Road within the City of
Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.. The required permit fee of $570.00 is also included in
the package. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate
contacting me at [phone] or by email at ppetitizoutgamail.com.
Sincerely,
Lowrys Environmental & Ecological Services, LLC.
S. Paul Petitgout
President/Managing Mem er
Enclosures
Copy: Jason Randolph — USACE
o��c�adr�
D
JUL l 1 2011
D - AER RESOURCES
BUFFER ITTING

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL NO.0710.0003
33 CFR 325. 'rhe Nancy
proponent en Is.CECW-CO-R.
E)CPIRES: 2a FEBRUARY 2013
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per a sponse, including the time for reviewing instructions. searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate at any othor aspect of the colV,diorl of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Managemen t and
Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any otprovision of tin, no Person shell be
sntbjed to any penalty for failing to comply with a caNedion of ihformaoon it it does not disptay a currently valid OMB control number- Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Campleted applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity,
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities. Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Ad, Section a04, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanetuanes
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of IN, Gorps of Engineers: Final Rule 33 CFR 320.332, Principal Purpose- Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Routine Uses: This information maybe shared with the Department et Justice and other
federal, state, and kcal government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is nor provided the application
permit cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be Issued Ore set
of original draw ingis or good reproducible copies which shwa the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to !tris application (see
sample drawings andfor instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent; not required)
First - SCo t Middle - Last - Lawrence
First - S. Middle -Paul Last - Petitgout
Company- MRECV-KW, LLC
Company- Lowrys Environmental & Ecological Services, LLC
E-mail Address -
E-mail Address - [e-mail]
ANTS ADDRESS:
9, AGENTS ADDRESS:
Address- 13860 Ballantyne Corporate Place; Suite 130
Address- 1823 Quinn Road
City - Charlotte State - NC Zip - 28277 Country - USA
City - Chester State - SC Zip -29706 Country -USA
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
704-930-7501
803-992-0910
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, a Paul Pe��ti��t$�o_rA (LEES) to my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental etformationin support of s perrtif! appl{catio
ATURE OF APPLICANT
NAME, LOdA7ION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJ ECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Kellswater Phase 3
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Adjacent to Irish Buffalo Creek
Address 3905 Isenhour Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.468417 Longitude: -W -80.656106
City - Kannapolis State- NC Zip- 28081
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see Instructions)
State Tax Parcet ID See Attached Sheet Municipality Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, NC
Section - N/A Township - N/A Range - NIA
C\I/� Ir Mail IA.. I AT ­_
"" - -"' ' ""' '."''L PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Charlotte, NC, Take I-85 North to Exit 54(Kannapolis Parkway). At the top of the exit ramp, tum left and go approximately 5 miles
to Rogers Lake Road. At the stoplight (intersection of Kannapolis Parkway and Rogers Lake Road), tum right and go 0,6 mile to Isenhour
Road. Turn Right onto Isenhour Road and go until the pavement ends. This is the Kellswater Phase 3 property,
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include ail features)
Please see Sections 1, 2 and 7 of the Attached Environmental Document.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Please see Section 1.1 of the Attached Environmental Document.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Please see Section 1 of the Attached Environmental Document.
------_-
21 Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount In Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Clean Fill - ±200 cubic yards
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)��
Acres 0.035 -acre
or
Linear Feet 205 If (Phase 3) plus 112 If (1N—WP - SAW -2012-00410) = TOTAI. 317 If
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions) _
Please See Sections 6 and 8 of the Attached Environmental Document.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

e 1Q E geld ZtOZ LIQ SttO IYNO� 4At3
gloq jo s1eaA any uegl a)ew lou peuosudw, Jo ppp'ptg uegl ajow Wu paug eq !legs'Aiiva m slueweaels ivalnpneu
jo Snopllog'Sge4 Aue weluoo of awes Buimoum walunocp lu 6wjum aslel Aue sash .o seiew )o swo,)oluaseidga 10 sWouj*p4s lualnpnpy
to aid *ale; Aue sa>reut )o ioel leualew a saspneslp jo 'awagos ')P q Aus do SJenq Jo 'glesouoa '-UfSiel Allnilpm pue AlNimou)l
$OMS PGuun ®gt /o Aouaft jo auauMedep Aue is uon+�?psun( gut uigj!m :auuew Aue w 'JenaoliMt '.I tlt sapinojd 1Oot uoraas U"S'Ij of
pauft pue we pada ueaq seg t t )pojq ut luawaiets agl p iue6e pezyouine
Amp Is AqjpSWs aq(ew jTl oydoe) Aj!A!ae pesodoid egt aXalmpur cl seltsap o.4m ;;es)ad au} Ac, pauB.s aq {snw uooe4jddv nqj_
i-4l - -� LI,ot-j,
- 'WRO!Idde
�o 'n iva8e paz)Ja�ne knD a4► s w .w Wia pagrrasap jom agl at!euapun of :.4,,otpne at j ssassod t ieyt Al?ua` )a wnl 1 e Due alaldu,o:i
s uoll�!Idds wui to uoliQw olu! S!4t tat# 41 1 'uop>ruldde sly? u! P-Pxnap vom aqt ezuotone of sjj utad .ro pwad iol e0ew s ucpeogddV '1 Z
spwiad Moto pooh uue '6ulplinq Imoz of patouisar jou s! inq apnpul pinoAA .
03!N3Q AVO 173/1( iiddy 31VU U31 idaV 31VO 'b3q mnN ,1VAO21ddb ?dA 1 k7N3'JV
NOUVi Ndl1N3U1
uo!1Caliddy s!uL u, Pa7! acao )100 1oi sa!ouaOv i&w xt 'aie1S 'le)apaj Wpo uroJi Pan!a101 sietueQrsleno,ddV io solasyli+a� layt0 to lsr; 9z
MIS
ssa,ppv 'e
d'Z alms • Ai")
•ssa)poy p
d Z alels von
-ssa)ppv 'o
d.Z atecg Ay.�
-ssa;Dpy q
saaattp t>Jadot�j ivaoa(pV jo is,? po4oeNV aaS-ssatppt4 e
OH IVANW&rs a aax ewwo mo, mmuw o w . , „oy ) Apoq.aie",t aqj swo`cy 'li:+xld,d asotNA' 013 'saessa-i s.aumo AUadwd Bu.WIOV to soSsalppy ' Z
NdOti1 C3.19'UNOa +il 39;6OS3U 'SaA it ON7xl sa ��, alaldtuv� apea,;y>„oM agtlo uauod Auv tl '*Z

KELLSWATER PHASE 3
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
BLOCK 25
PIN14:
56036054810000
PIN14:
56036003290000
Account Name 1:
UPRIGHT BERTIE F
Account Name 1:
UPRIGHT SAMMY RAY
Mailing Address:
4040 ISENHOUR RD
Mailing Address:
4084 ISENHOUR RD
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail State:
NC
Mail State:
NC
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Property Real ID:
04-048-0037.10
Property Real ID:
04-048-0036.20
PIN14:
56035024880000
PIN14:
56024989220000
INTEGRA SPRINGS PROPERTY
Account Name 1:
UPLANDS COMPANY INC
Account Name 1:
OWNER LLC
Mailing Address:
2600 S CANNON BLVD STE
Mailing Address:
125 W 55TH ST FL 10
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail City:
NEW YORK
Mail State:
NC
Mail State:
NY
Mail Zip Code:
28083
Mail Zip Code:
10019
Property Real ID:
04-048E-0004.00
Property Real ID:
04-048E-0001 00
PIN14: 56024930710000 PIN14: 56023892960000
Account Name 1: MPV KELLSWATER LLC Account Name 1: KELLSWATER HOLDING II LLC
Mailing Address: C/O GEORGE L KISER JR 74 BUCK
Mailing Address: 2400 SOUTH BLVD ISLAND RD APT 101
Mail City: CHARLOTTE Mail City: BLUFFTON
Mail State: NC Mail State: Sc
Mail Zip Code: 28203 Mail Zip Code: 29910
Property Real ID: 04-048D-0003.00 Property Real ID: 04-051-0037.20
1

KELLSWATER PHASE 3
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
BLOCK 25
PIN14:
56023892700000
PIN14:
560247270400DO
Account Name 1:
NORTHWEST SWIM &
Account Name 1:
THE REFUGE INC
RACQUET CLUB
Mailing Address:
P 0 BOX 796
Mailing Address:
230 REFUGE WAY
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail State:
NC
Mail State:
NC
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Property Real ID:
04-051-0037.10
Property Real ID:
04-051-0004.00
PIN14:
56024700510000
PIN14:
56025529070000
Account Name 1:
DIETZENBACH PHILLIP JAY
Account Name 1:
CENTRAL NC COUNCIL OF
Account Name 2:
DIETZENBACH NATALIE LOO Account Name 2:
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
Mailing Address:
820 KANNAPOLIS PKWY
Mailing Address:
P 0 BOX 250
Mail City:
CONCORD
Mail City:
ALBEMARLE
Mail State:
NC
Mail State:
NC
Mail Zip Code:
28027
Mail Zip Code:
28001
Property Real ID:
04-050-0014 00
Property Real ID:
04-0051-0035.00
PIN14:
56025670910000
PIN14:
56026576870000
BROWN LANDREL TYRANN CO-
Account Name 1:
OVERCASH ARTHUR LEON LF
Account Name 1:
TRSTEE
EST
Account Name 2:
BROWN SUZANNE S CO-
Account Name 2:
TRUSTEE
Mailing Address:
4777 CAMP CABARRUS DR
Mailing Address:
4714 CAMP CABARRUS OR
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail State:
NC
Mail State:
NC
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Property Real ID:
04-051-0034.20
Property Real 10:
04-051-0034 00
N

PIN14
Account Name 1:
Account Name 2:
Mailing Address:
Mail City:
Mail State:
Mail Zip Code:
Property Real ID:
PIN14:
Account Name 1:
Account Name 2:
Mailing Address:
Mail City:
Mail State:
Mail Zip Code:
Property Real ID
PIN14:
Account Name 1:
Mailing Address:
Mail City:
Mail State:
Mail Zip Code:
Property Real ID:
KELLSWATER PHASE 3
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
BLOCK 25
56028660060000 PIN14: 56028722670000
KANNAPOLIS REAL EST AGENCY Account Name 1: FUNDERBURKE DENISE
INC OVERCASH
Account Name 2: FUNDERBURKEJONATHAN SCOTT HSB
500 S CANNON BLVD Mailing Address: P 0 BOX 12
KANNAPOLIS Mail City: ALAMANCE
NC Mail State: NC
28083 Mail Zip Code: 27201
04-051 -0005.00 Property Real ID: 04-052 -0012.00
56028738580000
DRYE BRENDA R -TRUSTEE
REYNOLDS PAULINE H-REVC
TRUSTI
REYNOLDS ARLIE G -REVOC
TRUST1 1848 INDEPENDENCE
SQUARE
KANNAPOLIS
NC
28081
04-052 -0001.00
56028934830000
INGRAM GEORGE W
4325 BURGIN ST
KANNAPOLIS
NC
28081
04-051 -0002 10
3
PIN14:
56028834560000
Account Name 1:
BICKERSTAFF GLENN
Account Name 1:
4427 BURGIN ST
Mail City:
ARTHR ESTATE
Mail State:
BICKERSTAFF MARTHA
Account Name 2:
28081
Property Real ID:
WF
1330 VILLAGE GREEN
Mailing Address:
DR
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail State:
NC
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Property Real ID:
04-051 -0003.00
PIN14:
56037051510000
Account Name 1:
RUSS STARR
Mailing Address:
4427 BURGIN ST
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail State:
NC
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Property Real ID:
04-054-0026 00

KELLSWATER PHASE 3
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
BLOCK 2S
PIN14:
56037064230000
Account Name 1:
TEETE PEARL W
Mailing Address:
1420 TEATE DR
Mail City:
KANNAPOLIS
Mail State:
NC
Mail Zip Code:
28081
Property Real ID:
04-054-0002 00

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
KELLSWATER DEVELOPMENT PHASE 3
CITY OF KANNNAPOLIS, CABARUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
LEES Project No. 16001.00
July 2017
For
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte (Asheville) Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
828-271-7980
LOWRYS ENVIRONMENTAL &
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC.
1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
803-992-0910

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION............................................................................1
1.1
PURPOSE -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1.2
PERMITTING HISTORY
2
2.0
CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS ................................
?
2.1
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS.
2.1.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
2
2.1.2 Jurisdictional Streams
3
2.2
SOILS
3
3.0
ENDANGERED SPECIES......
3
4.0
CULTURAL RESOURCES .
5
5.0
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS..........................................................................................5
5.1
"NO ACTION" Alternative
6
5.2
"NO PERMIT" Alternative ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
5.3
Multiple Owners Alternative------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
5.4
Ingram Alternative---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
5.5
Kellswater Commercial Alternative -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
5.5
Overcash Alternative
9
5.5
Kellswater Phase 3 Alternative (Preferred Alternative) -----------------------------------------------------10
6.0
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
10
7.0
PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
12
7.1
WETLAND IMPACTS
12
7.2
STREAM IMPACTS
12
8.0
MITIGATION .................
13
9.0
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS
14
9.1
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ANTICIPATED
CHANGES
14
9.2
BILOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES
15
9.3
HUMAN USE CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPACTS
15
10.0
SUMMARY .................................................
...........17

Tables:
Table 1. Soil Summary
Table 2. Summary of Jurisdictional Impacts for Each Sketch Plan Reviewed
Table 3. Wetland Impact Summary
Table 4. Stream Impact Summary
Table 5. Wetland Mitigation Summary
Table 6. Stream Mitigation Summary
Fi ures
Sheet 1 of 13.
General Location Map
Sheet 2 of 13.
USGS Topographic Map
Sheet 3 of 13.
USDA Soils Map
Sheet 4 of 13.
USFWS NWI Map
Sheet 5 of 13.
Alternative Sites Location Map
Sheet 6 of 13.
"Multiple Owners" Alternative Site
Sheet 7 of 13.
"Ingram" Alternative Site
Sheet 8 of 13.
"Kellswater Commercial" Alternative Site
Sheet 9 of 13.
"Overcash" Alternative Site
Sheet 10 of 13.
"Kellswater Phase 3" Alternative Site (Preferred Alternative)
Sheet 11 of 13.
Overall Site Plan
Sheet 12 of 13.
Sketch Plan #1 (Avoidance/Minimization)
Sheet 13 of 13.
Sketch Plan #2 (Avoidance/Minimization)
Engineering Drawings
Sheet 1 of 5. Over Site Plan
Sheet 2 of 5. Overall Site Plan (No Topo)
Sheet 3 of 5. Wetland Impact 1 A and Stream Impact 1
Sheet 4 of 5. Stream Impact 2
Sheet 5 of 5. Stream Impact 3
Appendices
Appendix A — Nationwide Permit/Jurisdictional Determination SAW -2012-00410 Issued February
29, 2016.
Appendix B — Correspondence from NCDMS Regarding Mitigation Acceptance.
Appendix C — NCSAM Worksheets

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The f77 -acre planned development known as Kellswater Phase 3, lies near the intersection of
Kannapolis Parkway and Rogers Lake Road (southeast quadrant of the intersection), adjacent
to Isenhour Road, in the City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina and is
currently in the process of being developed (Sheets 1-4 of 13). The entire Kellswater
development has been planned as a high end residential community to service this quickly
developing area. This development is the culmination of several years of work to bring a
residential community to the Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, area that would service this
metropolitan Charlotte area with upscale housing. Previous developers began master
planning the development prior to the "Great Recession" that began in early 2008. Those
early plans integrated a large number of wetland and stream impacts into the overall plan that
have been abandoned due to the desire of the new development team to bring a multi -faceted
development to the area while still maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area and reducing
the overall environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
The growth of the housing market in the greater Charlotte Metropolitan area (seven county
area) has been enormous since the end of the "Great Recession." The demand for housing in
the area has skyrocketed since 2011 and appears to be heading for increases into the
foreseeable future. With this in mind, the owners of the Kellswater, Phase 3 Development
Site have begum developing the other phases of the site over the last several years to meet
the growing need for housing in this quickly growing area of Cabarrus County, North
Carolina. Currently, demand is extremely strong for housing in the Kannapolis area due to
very rapid growth. The increased demand has been created by a shortage of entitled
developments that have the needed infrastructure to quickly move from an undeveloped state
to finished lots in the area. With this in mind, the basic purpose of this project is to provide
residential housing in this area of Cabarrus County where growth is exceeding the supply of
housing, while completing the development in an environmentally sensitive manner (keeping
wetland and/or stream impact to the minimum necessary to meet the overall objective of the
project). The overall purpose of the project is to expand the existing development (phases 1
and 2) by bringing on line Phase 3 which will be able to use the existing infratructre already
created by Phases 1 and 2, which should allow the area to be developed with less
environmental impact than if the Phase 3 development was starting from scratch on
properties not associated with the Kellswater development.
1.2 PERMITTING HISTORY
The initial project actually began in late 2005 and was known as the Kellswater Crossing
development project. With the significant downturn in the economy that occurred in 2007-
2008, and lasted for several years, the project was eventually acquired through foreclosure by
the financial institutions which had loaned money for its initial acquisition. During the
original portion of the project, the project was entitled by the Town of Kannapolis, North
Carolina.

The current developers for the Kellswater project applied for a Nationwide Permit (NWP 29)
for a single road crossing that accessed the central portion of the property. Based on
information from the US Army Corps of Engineers permit issued February 29, 2016 (Action
ID: SAW -2012-00410), permanent impacts of 112 linear feet of stream were permitted for
the project (Appendix A). This crossing was dictated by the City of Kannapolis, which
requires two points of access to all parts of the development. There was one entrance to the
back side of the property from Rogers Lake Road, but the rationale for applying for this
crossing was that two points of access were needed so that the residents would have safe
passage should one of the crossings be blocked. It should be noted here that the permittee
intends to mitigate for the 117 linear feet of impact associated with the road crossing
permitted under the Nationwide Permit 29 that was issued. This permanent impact will be
added to the total impact for the future development and will be mitigated for as a part of this
permit action (as shown in Table 6).
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property currently comprised of a large mixture of different uses. Those include
existing residential development (in Phase 1), clearing for new development (Phase 2, 4 and
5), and existing timberland (Phase 3). Upland forested communities are dominated by a
canopy of sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia). The shrub layer is primarily saplings of the canopy species, but also includes
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and red cedar
(juniperus virginiana). The groundcover consists of vines such as Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) and wild grape (Vitis rotundifolia) with herbaceous individuals such as
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and blackberry (Rubus argutus) also being
present. Topography in the area is generally moderately sloped.
2.1 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Wetland and stream delineations were conducted by ESI in 2013. A jurisdictional
determination request was submitted to the Corps office in Asheville. A field visit was
conducted by Mr. Steve Kichefski in June of 2013, and a JD letter was issued as a part of a
Nationwide Permit Action in February, 2016 (Appendix A).
2.1.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
On-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S., as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), were delineated by ESI during 2013. The site was evaluated utilizing the Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement (Version 2) published by the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 2012).
Onsite wetlands consist of a few canopy tree species such as sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciva), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana).
The majority of shrubs are saplings of canopy species. Herbaceous groundcover is
dominated by microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
2

2.1.2 Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were classified according to USACE guidance. The results
of the jurisdictional determination investigation indicated that there are several jurisdictional
stream segments located within the development. All of these streams are either first or
second order tributaries that either form or empty into Irish Buffalo Creek, a part of the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin (HUC #03040105) (USGS 1974).
2.2 SOILS
According to the USDA Soil Survey of Cabarrus County, six soil mapping units are found
within the project boundary (Sheet 3 of 13). The soil units are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Soil Summary
Soil Unit
Map Symbol
General Characteristics
Cecil Sandy Clay Loam,
CeB2
2-8 percent slopes, eroded
Deep to very deep, well drained moderately permeable soils on ridges
and side slopes of the Piedmont.
Cecil Sandy Clay Loam,
8-15 percent slopes,
CeD2
eroded
Chewacla Sandy Loam
Ch
Very deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that
Frequently Flooded
occur in floodplains of the Piedmont
Cullen Clay Loam
CuB2
2-8 percent slopes, eroded
Very deep, well drained moderately permeable soils formed in
residuum from mixed mafic and felsic crystalline rocks that occur on
Cullen Clay Loam
CuD2
upland ridgetops and side slopes of the Piedmont.
8-15 percent slopes
Enon Sandy Loam, 2-8
EnB
percent slopes
Very deep, well drained, slowly permeable soils on ridgetops and side
slopes of the Piedmont.
Enon Sandy Loam, 8-15
percent slopes
EnD
Pacolet Sandy Loam, 15-
PaF
Very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils of the Piedmont.
35 percent slopes
Poindexter Loam, 15-45
Moderately deep well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed
percent slopes
PoF
in residuum from basic rocks or a mixture of basic and acidic rocks in
the Piedmont.
3.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES
Lowrys Environmental and Ecological Services, LLC (LEES) has conducted an investigation
for the potential of endangered species or their associated habitats within an approximately
75 -acre area of a site known as the Kellswater Phase 3 development, located near the
intersection of Kannapolis Parkway and Rogers Lake Road (southeast quadrant of the
intersection), adjacent to Isenhour Road, in the City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North
Carolina.
The USFWS (USFWS online database) indicates three species with ranges extending into

Cabarrus County: Northern long eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata), and Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
On September 16, 2016, ESI personnel reviewed digital records kept by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). ESI evaluated the project study area during the period
of September 21-22, 2016, for potential habitat associated with federally listed Threatened
(T) or Endangered (E) species known to occur in Cabarrus County. It should be noted here
that ESI performed the surveys for all of the terrestrial species. Surveys for Carolina
heelsplitter were not performed due to the lack of quality habitat.
The following Biological Conclusions are presented for review and are based on the research
and surveys conducted for each of the species potentially present on the site.
Northern long-eared bat (T) is a medium-sized bat about 3 to 3.7 inches in length but with
a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. The northern long-eared bat is found across much of the
eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic coast
west to the southern Northwest Territories and eastern British Columbia. During summer,
northern long-eared bats roost singly or in' colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in
crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in
cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat seems opportunistic in selecting roosts, using
tree species based on suitability to retain bark or provide cavities or crevices. Northern long-
eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. They typically use large caves or
mines with large passages and entrances; constant temperatures; and high humidity with no
air currents. NCNHP records review indicates no documented occurrences within a one-mile
radius of the project study area. Low quality potential habitat for this species may exist
within the project study area. No known hibernacula or maternity roost trees are known to
exist on or near the property.
Biological Conclusion: May effect, not likely to adversely affect
Carolina heelsplitter (E) tends to inhabit shaded areas in large rivers to small streams and is
often burrowed into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep
banks with moderate current. The more recent habitat where the Carolina heelsplitter has
been found is in sections of streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled
with sand and gravel, and with wide riparian buffers. The project study area does contain
some small streams that may provide marginal habitat for Carolina heelsplitter. NCNHP
records review indicates no documented occurrences within a one-mile radius of the project
study area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Schweinitz' sunflower (E) tends to grow in soils that are thin, occur on upland interstream
flats or gentle slopes, are clayey in texture, and, when weathered from metasedimentary
rocks, often contain large quantities of slaty rock fragments. This species also inhabits
generally open areas, with abundant sunlight and little competition from other vegetation.
Suitable habitat for this species is present along the open areas along roadsides and within the
large powerline corridor present on site. Additionally, there are areas that have been
previously cleared that are in early succession that provide marginal habitat. During the
systematic survey of these areas, no individuals of Schweinitz' sunflower or related species
were observed. NCNHT records review indicates no documented occurrences within a one -
9

mile radius of the project study area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ESI has conducted a preliminary review for cultural resources that are known to occur on or
near the proposed project site. In addition, a request for project review has been submitted to
the NC State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO). Results of the review by NC SHPO
have not been received by the applicant. Once we receive comments from the NC SHPO, we
will forward these comments to the US Army Corps of Engineers for review. At that time, a
determination as to whether further cultural resource work is necessary on the subject
property will be made.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Prior to the current owners purchasing the Kellswater Development project, entitled
properties in the northern portion of the Charlotte Metropolitan Area were reviewed. The
developers were interested in properties that could be developed as a residential
development, tied to the adjacent commercial and institutional areas located in the general
aera. The owners were also looking for property that was entitled by the local government
for development which would facilitate development quickly once the housing market
recovered. At this time (2010), it was not feasible to develop raw land with no entitlements
due to the tight credit market and the fact that distressed properties were available for
purchase.
When selecting propertys from all available alternatives, the owners were utilizing the
following criteria: (1) the development needed to be in a fast growing area within the
Charlotte Metropolitan Area, specifically Cabarrus County (2) the site needed to be entitled,
and (3) the majority of the site needed to be constructable without Section 404/401
Permitting (minimal impacts to wetlands and streams). The overall Kellswater site met
these criteria. The site is located in north -central Cabarrus County (City of Kannapolis), it
was entitled by the previous owners, and Phases 1, 2, 4, and 5 could be constructed without
Section 404/401 Impacts to wetlands or streams. However, now that the development has
reached the point of needing to make impacts within Phase 3 of the project. With this in
mind, altenatives to the Phase 3 site must be evaluated to make sure that this is the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), that meets the purpose and
need of the project.
The criteria for choosing alternative sites for Phase 3 were as follows: (1) the site needs to be
adjacent to the existing phases of the Kellswater site to maintain connectivity to the existing
facilities/infrastructure, (2) the parcel (or group of parcels) needs to contain at least 50 -acres
of buildable area to generate the needed area for housing, and the site needs to be available
for sale and easlily entitled (zoned to Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) if it is
not already). In addition to these conditions, the amount of impacts to natural (wetlands,
streams, endangered species) and cultural resources needs to be evaluated.
For the purposes of this environmental document, seven potential alternatives will be
reviewed: (1) the "No Action Alternative," (2) the "No Permit Alternative," (3) the
R

"Multiple Owners" Alternative, (4) the "Ingram Site" Alternative, (5) the "Kellswater
Commercial Site" Alternative, (6) the "Overcash Site" Alternative, and (7) the "Kellswater
Phase 3 Site " Alternative (the preferred alternative) (Sheet 5 of 13).
5.1 "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
A "No Action" alternative, which means the applicant will not develop the site, therefore
avoiding all wetland and surface water impacts, is not a reasonable alternative for this
project. The demand for additional housing lots in this area is high and additional
development land that has access to existing infrastructure is non-existent in this area of
Kannapolis and Cabarrus County, NC. No Action would basically mean that the project's
overall purpose and need would not be met because due to the fact that the site would not be
developed and another site would need to be located. Since this does not meet the overall
purpose and need of the project, the "No Action Alternative" is not a viable alternative.
5.2 "NO PERMIT" ALTERNATIVE
A "No Permit" alternative which avoids all wetland and surface water impacts, is not a
reasonable alternative as the site would need to be completely redesigned in order to avoid
the discharge of fill into any wetlands and streams located on site. All development areas
that may encroach into jurisdictional areas would need to be redesigned to avoid the
jurisdictional impacts. Overall, the critical design criteria needed to make the project viable
could not be implemented, making it impossible to meet the project's purpose and need. Due
to these factors, the No Permit alternative is not considered a practicable alternative.
5.3 MULTIPLE OWNERS ALTERNATIVE
Location: The Multiple Owners alternative is located adjacent to the existing Kellswater
development and Rogers Lake Road, approximately 0.4 mile east of the intersection of
Kannapolis Parkway and Rogers Lake Road, within the City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus
County, North Carolina (Sheet 6 of 13). The property has mixed zoning (Agricultural (AG)
and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)). The parcels that are not currently
zoned TND would need to be rezoned before the development could be entitled by the city.
Land Use: Based on GIS mapping obtained from the Cabarrus County, the site is
undeveloped and consists of mostly undisturbed forestland with a small area of pastureland.
Two of the parcels that make up this conglomerate of parcels, are occupied currently.
Environmental Concerns: There are two tributary systems estimated to be within this
alternative (Irish Buffalo Creek and an unnamed tributary to Irish Buffalo Creek). Irish
Buffalo Creek has an extensive floodplain which we estimate would contain areas of
wetlands. The unnamed tributary along with the potential wetland areas make the area
challenging to develop without any impact. In addition to the wetlands and streams located
on site, limited habitat for endangered species may be present on site. Further, with the site
being in a relatively undisturbed setting, and adjacent to a major creek, cultural resources
may be present.

Advantages to this Alternative: The site has great access from Rogers Lake Road and a
portion of the site is zoned properly for a TND development. Impacts to streams may be less
than the preferred alternative.
Disadvantages to this Alternative: There are four major disadvantages to this proposed
alternative. First, the site does not meet the minimum size required (f50 buildable acres) for
the proposed development. Secondly, the site is not fully entitled and ready for development,,
based on our current research. There would be considerable expense in obtaining the correct
zoning to meet the conditions required by a TND development. Secondly, the proposed site
would need to impact the majority of streams and wetlands to provide buildable area. Since
the general size requirement has not been met, buildable area must be maximized in order to
meet the purpose and need of the development. Thirdly, the proposed site has the potential to
contain both significant cultural resources and endangered species. All undeveloped sites
have this potential, but given the size and location of this area the odds are greater that
something significant could be present. Lastly, and most importantly, the parcels are owned
by several different landowners and none of the parcels are currently available for purchase.
Based on the fact that the Multiple Owners Site has the potential to have impacts to wetlands
and streams, endangered species, and cultural resources, and is also not currently available
for purchase, the site does not meet the purpose and need for the project and therefore cannot
be considered a practicable alternative.
5.4 INGRAM ALTERNATIVE
Location: The Ingram Site alternative is located east of and adjacent to Irish Buffalo Creek
within the City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina (Sheet 7 of 13). The
property is zoned medium density residential (RM -2).
Land Use: Based on current mapping by the Cabarrus County, the site is undeveloped and
consists of mostly pastureland and forested areas.
Environmental Concerns: Irish Buffalo Creek forms the western property boundary for this
alternative. In order to connect to the existing development, a bridge crossing would likely
be required. This would be extremely costly connection. Additionally, there is a sizable
floodplain on the property. In addition to Irish Buffalo Creek and the potential wetlands
located within its floodplain areas, habitat for endangered species (specifically Schweinitz's
sunflower) may be present on site. Further, with the site being in a relatively undisturbed
setting, cultural resources may be present.
Advantages to this Alternative: The site may meet the general size criteria of ±50 buildable
acres (the unbuildable floodplain area may reduce the buildable area below 50 -acres). The
property is currently zoned medium density residential. Additionally, the disturbance noted
on site (presence of cleared, pasture type areas) reduces the probability of significant cultural
resources being located on site, and potential wetland and stream impacts would be limited to
the floodplain areas of Irish Buffalo Creek.
Disadvantages to this Alternative: There are five major disadvantages to this proposed
alternative. First, the site may not meet the minimum buildable area of f50 -acres due to the
7

extensive floodplain located on the site. Secondly, the site is not fully entitled and ready for
development, based on our current research. There may be considerable expense in
obtaining the correct zoning to meet the conditions required by a TND development.
Thirdly, the proposed site has the potential to contain endangered species. With open habitat
present, Schweinitz's sunflower have higher probability of being present than the other
alternatives. Additionally, access to the site is problematic as the only current access would
be from Bergin Street via Independence Square (from Rogers Lake Road). The roads would
likely need to be upgraded to handle the traffic associated with the new development. Lastly,
and most importantly, the site is currently unavailable for purchase.
Based on the fact that the site may not meet the minimum buildable size requirement, is not
fully entitled and zoned properly, access issues and the fact that the site is currently
unavailable for purchase, the site does not meet the purpose and need for the project and
therefore cannot be considered a practicable alternative.
5.5 KELLSWATER COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE
Location: The Kellswater Commercial Site alternative is located at the intersection of
Rogers Lake Road and Kannapolis Parkway, within the City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus
County, North Carolina (Sheet 8 of 13). The property is zoned General Commercial (C-2)
Land Use: Based on current mapping by the Cabarrus County, the site is undeveloped and
consists of mostly cleared land.
Environmental Concerns: There is a small tributary that forms the northern property
boundary. Irish Buffalo Creek forms the western property boundary for this alternative. In
order to connect to the existing Kellswater development, a bridge crossing would likely be
required. This would be an extremely costly connection. Additionally, there is a sizable
floodplain on the property. In addition to Irish Buffalo Creek and the potential wetlands
located within its floodplain areas, habitat for endangered species (Schweinitz's sunflower)
may be present on site. Further, with the site being in a relatively undisturbed setting,
cultural resources may be present.
Advantages to this Alternative: The site meets the general size criteria of f50 buildable
acres. Additionally, the disturbance noted on site (presence of cleared areas) reduces the
probability of significant cultural resources being located on site, and potential wetland and
stream impacts would not be required. The site has great access from both Kellswater
Parkway and Rogers Lake Road.
Disadvantages to this Alternative: There are three major disadvantages to this proposed
alternative. First, the site is not fully entitled and ready for development, based on our
current research. There would be considerable expense in obtaining the correct zoning to
meet the conditions required by a TND development. The City would also be reluctant to
rezone the parcel from commercial to a residential use due to the lack of commercial area in
the area. Secondly, the proposed site has the potential to contain endangered species. With
open habitat present, Schweinitz's sunflower has a higher probability of being present than
most of the other alternatives. Lastly, and most importantly, the site is currently unavailable
for purchase.
8

Based on the fact that the site is not fully entitled and zoned properly, and is currently
unavailable for purchase, the site does not meet the purpose and need for the project and
therefore cannot be considered a practicable alternative.
5.6 OVERCASH ALTERNATIVE
Location: The Overcash Site alternative is located south of the existing Kellswater
Developmment, of and adjacent to Irish Buffalo Creek within the City of Kannapolis,
Cabarrus County, North Carolina (Sheet 9 of 13). The property is zoned Agricultural (AG).
Land Use: Based on current mapping by the Cabarrus County, the site is undeveloped and
consists of mostly pastureland and some small forested areas.
Environmental Concerns: Irish Buffalo Creek forms the easterm property boundary for this
alternative. Additionally, there is a sizable floodplain on the property. There is also the
possibility of an unnamed tributary forming on the property and flowing to Irish Buffalo
Creek. In addition to Irish Buffalo Creek and the potential wetlands and stream located
within or near its floodplain areas, habitat for endangered species (specifically Schweinitz's
sunflower) may be present on site. Further, with the site being in a relatively undisturbed
setting, cultural resources may be present.
Advantages to this Alternative: The site may meet the general size criteria of ±50 buildable
acres (the unbuildable floodplain area may reduce the buildable area below 50 -acres). The
property is currently zoned agricultural (AG). Additionally, the disturbance noted on site
(presence of cleared, pasture type areas) reduces the probability of significant cultural
resources being located on site, and potential wetland and stream impacts would be limited to
the floodplain areas of Irish Buffalo Creek and possibly the small unnamed tributary.
Disadvantages to this Alternative: There are four major disadvantages to this proposed
alternative. First, the site may not meet the minimum buildable area of f50 -acres due to the
extensive floodplain located on the site. Secondly, the site is not fully entitled and ready for
development, based on our current research. There may be considerable expense in
obtaining the correct zoning to meet the conditions required by a TND development.
Secondly, the proposed site has the potential to contain endangered species. With open
habitat present, Schweinitz's sunflower will have a higher probability of being present than
most of the other alternatives. Lastly, access to the site is problematic as the only current
access would be from Camp Cabarrus Road, via Kannapolis Parkway. This road would
likely need to be upgraded to handle the traffic associated with the new development. This
would be very costly and may also affect adjacent property owners. In addition to the
problematic nature of improving Camp Cabarrus Road, a connection to the existing
Kellswater development would require impacts to both wetlands and stream. Lastly, and
most importantly, the site is currently unavailable for purchase.
Based on the fact that the site may not meet the minimum buildable size requirement, is not
fully entitled and zoned properly, access issues and the fact that the site is currently
unavailable for purchase, the site does not meet the purpose and need for the project and
therefore cannot be considered a practicable alternative.
Z

5.7 KELLSWATER PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE (Preferred Alternative)
Location: The Kellswater Phase 3 site alternative is located adjacent to the existing
Kellswater development and has access from Rogers Lake Road. The Kellswater Phase 3
site is currently zoned properly (TND). The property is located adjacent to Isenhour Road
and Irish Buffalo Creek near the intersection of Rogers Lake Road and Kannapolis Parkway,
in the City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina (Sheet 10 of 13).
Land Use: The current land use of the proposed development areas would be primarily
silviculture, with some small areas of cleared pastureland.
Environmental Concerns: A large unnamed tributary separates this parcel from the
remaining Kellswater Development. Additionally there are two other small unnamed
tributarys that occur on site. The pasture areas also have the potential for endangered species
(Schweinitz's sunflower).
Advantages to this Alternative: The site meets the size and zoning requirements and the site
was available for purchase. Impacts to jurisdictional waters have been minimized.
Additionally, there would be no known effects to endangered species or cultural resources.
The site also meets the purpose and need for the project, as well as all other siting
requirements.
Disadvantages to this Alternative: Permanent stream impacts of 205 linear feet and
permanent wetland impacts of 0.035 -acre which will allow for the construction of this unique
transportation oriented development.
Based on the fact that the preferred alternative is the only alternative that meets the purpose
and need of the project, and does so while minimizing jurisdictional impacts to the greatest
extent practicable, we believe that preferred alternative would be the least damaging,
environmentally preferable alternative.
6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Wetland and stream impacts on the preferred alternative have been avoided and/or minimized
to the greatest extent practicable. The project will impact approximately 205 linear feet. The
vast majority of jurisdictional areas are avoided by the development of the property. The
reason that the vast majority of jurisdictional areas are avoided is that the developer's
engineer took care to try and avoid jurisdictional areas to the greatest extent practicable. All
stream impacts are to first order, intermittent streams. The wetland that is proposed for
impact is a small wetland area at the head of one of the tributaries (Sheets 11-13 of 13).
During the initial design efforts, several configurations were evaluated for lot efficiency and
environmental impact. The first draft of a sketch plan (Sheet 12 of 13) had approximately
650 linear feet of stream impact and approximately 0.2 -acre of wetland impact. All of the
impacts were directly related to either lot fill or road fill. This plan would call for impacts to
the entire stream and wetland system that drains to Irish Buffalo Creek along the eastern
property boundary. Additionally, a small wetland pocket along the southern boundary of this
E

phase would also be completely eliminated by this plan. The engineer and developer both
agreed that the impacts were too great and that a plan could be derived on this site that met
the overall need for lots while minimizing impacts to jurisdictional areas.
The second draft of the sketch plan (Sheet 12 of 13) reduced impacts to the wetland and
stream system that drains to Irish Buffalo Creekby approximately 200 linear feet, but the
central portion of the stream reach would still be impacted by lot fill and isolating the upper
portion of the reach and the small wetland at the head of the reach above the pipe that would
be needed to pass water through the area of fill. Additionally, the small wetland along the
southern boundary of the phase is eliminated, as well (Proposed Impacts: Stream -450 If;
Wetland -0.2 -acre). Again the engineer and the developer determined that a better plan that
still met their development goals with fewer impacts was still possible.
A third draft of the sketch plan (Sheet 12 of 13) was reviewed and it consisted of the same
basic plan as the second draft with the exception of connecting the two cul-de-sacs and
placing a culverted crossing in the tributary to Irish Buffalo Creek. The engineer calculated
that the impacts would be nearly the same as the second draft sketch plan with a similar lot
efficiency. This plan was discarded also.
The final plan, which is presented as the preferred plan (Engineering Drawings: Sheets 1-5
of 5) reduce impacts to the tributary to Irish Buffalo Creek down to 67 linear feet. The
wetland at the head of this tributary is also lost, but the wetland size is relatively small
(0.032 -acre). A small trail crossing (20 linear feet) of this same triburary is planned for a
trail system along Irish Buffalo Creek. The secondary tributary that drains to another
tributary of Irish Buffalo Creek also benefits from this plan as impacts are reducted from
approximately 200 linear feet down to 118 linear feet. Impacts to the the wetland along the
southern phase boundary is elimated completely.
It should be noted here that, when feasible, the current site design also integrated sewer lines
into road rights of way to prevent impacts.
In summary, the developer and his engineer has designed a site that meets the stated purpose
and need of the project while avoiding and minimizing impacts to jurisdictional areas to the
greatest extent practicable. Table 2 summarizes the proposed impacts for each version of the
sketch plan.
Tahle 2. Summary of Jurisdictional Imnacts for Each Sketch Plan Reviewed.
Sketch Plan Version
Stream Impacts
linear feet
Wetland Impacts
acres
I" Sketch Plan
±650
±0.2
2nd Sketch Plan
±450
±0.17
3rd Sketch Plan
±430
±0.17
Final referred Sketch Plan
205
1 0.03

7.0 PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
As mentioned above, the proposed plan calls for the three separate stream impacts totaling
205 linear feet of permanent stream impact and 0.035 -acre of permanent wetland impact.
These impacts are two main types: (1) wetland/stream fill, and (2) culverted stream crossing.
It should be noted here that the culvert placed for the stream crossing for the trail will be
buried to the appropriate depth to facilitate aquatic movement through the pipe. Fill placed
in headwater streams will be done in such a way as to facilitate the movement of water
through the fill until it is "daylighted." This will be accomplished using "french drains" or
other acceptable engineering techniques. Engineering Drawings are attached that depict the
proposed impacts associated with the project (Engineering Drawings: Sheets 1-5 of 5).
7.1 WETLAND IMPACTS
There is one, very small wetland impact associated with the project. Wetland Impact 1
consists of the placement of a culvert for a road crossing and some lot fill. Table 3 below,
summarizes the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands associated with the project.
Table 3. Wetlands Impact mary
Wetland
Area of
Located
Engineering
Impact
Type of Impact
Impact
within
Drawings
Site
(acres)
100 -year
Sheet
Number
Floodplain
Number(s)
I
Fill/Road
0.035
No
1, 2, 3
Crossing
Total Wetland Impacts: 0.035 -acre
7.2 STREAM IMPACTS
There are three separate stream impacts located on site. Stream Impact 1 consists of fill
placed in a headwater stream (and the adjacent wetland) for a road crossing and associated
lot development. Stream Impact 2 consists of fill placed in a headwater stream for lot
development. Stream Impact 3 consists of the placement of a culvert for a trail crossing.
Table 4 below, summarizes the proposed impacts to jurisdictional streams associated with the
project.
12

Table 4. Stream Impact Summary
Stream
Area of
Length of
Area of
Temporary or
Required
Engineering
Impact
Type of
Impact
Impact
Permanent
perennial or
Drawings
Site
Impact
(Linear Feet)
(Acres)
Impact
Intermittent
Sheet
Number
Number(s)
1
Fill
67
0.003
Permanent
Intermittent
1, 2, 3
2
Fill
118
0.005
Permanent
Perennial
1, 2, 4
3
Trail
20
0.002
Permanent
Perennial
1, 2, 5
Crossing
Total Permanent Stream Impacts: 205 linear feet (0.01 -acre)
8.0 MITIGATION
The applicant proposes to compensate for wetland and stream impacts through the purchase
of both stream and wetland mitigation from the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS). Application has been made to the NCDMS since there are no wetland or stream
mitigation banks that service the area of the project. The applicant has made application to
the NCDMS for both the stream and wetland impacts associate with the project.
Correspondence from NCDMS accepting responsibility for both the wetland and stream
mitigation is attached as Appendix B. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the impacts associated with
the project and the mitigation required to compensate for the impacts. The North Carolina
Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) worksheets that were used in determining the
mitigation ratios for the proposed stream impacts are included in Appendix C.
Table 5. Wetland Mitigation Summary
Wetland
Area of
Impact
Impact
Required
Site
Mitigation
Number
(acres)
1
0.035
0.25 -acre
Total Required Wetland Mitigation:
0.25 -acre
13

Table 6. Stream Mitigation Summary
*Note: Ratios are based on the following values: Perennial High = 2:1; Perennial Medium = 1.75:1;
Perennial Low = 1.5:1; Intermittent High = 1:1; Intermittent Medium = 0.75:1; Intermittent Low = 0.5:1
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS
Information regarding the physical/chemical characteristics and anticipated changes,
biological characteristics and anticipated changes, and human use characteristics and impacts
of the proposed project were used to make the determination that this project is not contrary
to the public interest. This information is summarized below:
9.1 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES
• Substrate: Earthmoving will occur within the Kellswater Phase 3 development
project; however, no significant changes to the general substrate are anticipated other
than what is necessary for construction and landscaping.
• Currents, Circulation, or Drainage Patterns: Stream and wetland impacts are
proposed; however, no significant changes to the overall circulation and drainage of
the Kellswater Phase 3 development project are anticipated.
• Suspended Particulates and Turbidity: The approved Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan will be strictly enforced to maintain State and federal water quality
standards during construction.
• Water Quality: Overall water quality on the site is expected to increase as a result of
a comprehensive stormwater management plan and associated buffer areas.
Downstream water quality will not be affected by the Kellswater Phase 3
14
Intermittent
Perennial
Stream Impact Site
Impact
Required Mitigation
Required Mitigation
Number
(Linear Feet)
Ratio*
Ratio*
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
1
67
0.75 (50)
X
2
118
0.75 (89)
X
3
20
0.75 (15)
X
Previous Impacts
112
X
1.75 (196)
(NWP 29)
TOTAL
317
154
196
TOTAL REQUIRED STREAM
350 linear feet
MITIGATION
*Note: Ratios are based on the following values: Perennial High = 2:1; Perennial Medium = 1.75:1;
Perennial Low = 1.5:1; Intermittent High = 1:1; Intermittent Medium = 0.75:1; Intermittent Low = 0.5:1
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS
Information regarding the physical/chemical characteristics and anticipated changes,
biological characteristics and anticipated changes, and human use characteristics and impacts
of the proposed project were used to make the determination that this project is not contrary
to the public interest. This information is summarized below:
9.1 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES
• Substrate: Earthmoving will occur within the Kellswater Phase 3 development
project; however, no significant changes to the general substrate are anticipated other
than what is necessary for construction and landscaping.
• Currents, Circulation, or Drainage Patterns: Stream and wetland impacts are
proposed; however, no significant changes to the overall circulation and drainage of
the Kellswater Phase 3 development project are anticipated.
• Suspended Particulates and Turbidity: The approved Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan will be strictly enforced to maintain State and federal water quality
standards during construction.
• Water Quality: Overall water quality on the site is expected to increase as a result of
a comprehensive stormwater management plan and associated buffer areas.
Downstream water quality will not be affected by the Kellswater Phase 3
14

development project due to the stormwater practices that will be implemented during
site development.
• Flood Control Functions: Alterations to the site as a result of the Kellswater Phase 3
development project will not result in a reduction of flood control functions due to the
fact that the project will be located outside of any regulated floodplain.
• Storm, Wave and Erosion Buffers: The Kellswater Phase 3 development project
will have no effect on storm, wave and erosion buffers.
• Aquifer Recharge: Preliminary assessments indicate that the Kellswater Phase 3
development project will not have an effect on aquifer recharge.
• Baseflow: The Kellswater Phase 3 development project will not have an effect on
baseflow.
9.2 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES
• Special Aquatic Sites: Certain unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams will
result from this project; however, impacts have been minimized to the maximum
extent possible, and are being mitigated through the purchase of wetland and stream
mitigation credits from the NC Division of Mitigation Services.
• Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms: No significant habitat degradation
is anticipated as a result of the project. Appropriate culverts and pipes will be used
for crossings that allow for aquatic life passage, including burying pipes.
• Wildlife Habitat: No significant habitat degradation is anticipated as a result of the
Kellswater Phase 3 development project. Fragmentation will occur; however, those
species occurring on the site are adaptable to fragmented landscapes. Wildlife
corridors and open space will be left undisturbed throughout the project when
possible.
• Endangered or Threatened Species: Protected species issues are addressed in
Section 3.0 of this report.
9.3 HUMAN USE CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPACTS
• Existing and Potential Water Supplies: The Kellswater Phase 3 development
project should have no effect on existing or potential water supplies.
• Recreational or Commercial Fisheries: No effect.
• Other Water Related Recreation: No effect.
• Aesthetics of Aquatic Ecosystem: No effect.
• Parks, National and Historic Properties, etc.: No effect.
• Traffic/Transportation Patterns: The design team does not anticipate any issues
with traffic resulting from this project.
• Energy Consumption/Generation: No effect.
LIN

• Navigation: No effect.
• Safety: No effect.
• Air Quality: No effect.
• Noise: No effect.
• Historic Properties: The NC SHPO has been advised of the project and we are
currently waiting on a determination of whether or not additional cultural resource
work will be necessary.
• Land Use Classification: The design team and applicant have dealt with all zoning
issues.
• Economics: The Kellswater Phase 3 development is not anticipated to have any
significant effect on the local economy other than to provide the necessary supply of
housing needed in the area.
• Property Values: Property values in the vicinity may increase as a result of the
project
• Regional Growth: The Kellswater Phase 3 development project is not intended as
driver of regional growth. It is only intended to provide needed additional housing
supply.
• Tax Revenues: The Kellswater Phase 3 development should increase tax revenues
for the county, state and federal governments modestly.
• Employment: The Kellswater Phase 3 development project is not anticipated to
create a significant increase in employment for the area. However, there may be a
slight increase in construction related jobs during the period of construction.
• Public Facilities: Not applicable.
• Business Activity: Not applicable.
• Prime and Unique Farmland: No effect.
• Food and Fiber Production: There will be a modest reduction in fiber production as
a result of this project in that some of the land was previously used for timber
production.
• Water Quantity: Other than the direct impacts to wetlands and streams on the site,
which are being mitigated, the Kellswater Phase 3 development project should not
affect water quality.
• Mineral Needs: No effect.
• Consideration of Private Property: No effect.
• Community Cohesion: The Kellswater Phase 3 development project should not
impact existing community cohesion.
• Community Growth and Development: The Kellswater Phase 3 development
project will not affect future community growth and development.
• Relocations: No relocations are anticipated as a result of this project.
10

10.0 SUMMARY
The Kellswater Phase 3 development project is being proposed in order to meet the
need/market for a high end residential development (single family residential) in Kannapolis,
Cabarrus County, North Carolina, a portion of the greater Charlotte Metropolitan Area. The
project, as proposed, will require approximately 205 linear feet of permanent jurisdictional
stream impact and approximately 0.035 -acre of permanent wetland impact. Additionally, the
owners will be providing compensatory mitigation for the impacts that were permitted
previously by a Nationwide Permit (112 linear feet). To compensate for this loss, the
applicant proposes to purchase stream and wetland mitigation from the NC Division of
Mitigation Services to satisfy all compensatory mitigation needs.
17

FIGURES
(Sheets 1-13)

O} I )
/'� l
r
77
Zs
1 _
Project Location
77 acres)
Al-
> ��"`,° - '��_- 1. z'' �.-.,�'.,'-'�'-�y,� , _ , ~' IQ� ,r� • � , a • �,�,,,�;�i f _._ �� ��1jilt
Overall Development
(± 256 acres) iil� �,�- '`) i i l a 1C�'c+ �i
a
✓.
1
✓ (l , - i \ 411 a`s� ~�"' 'S f� , '{ , � ,
t,. � .1 S � 7 1 I l i ..•y �y..'a a) I �S 1� ^. � a...+±�
l/
rus'`:'
f'
J.., w„
� ' � f � tr� `-,' ' ` --.,.. , LJ �'.� }t" y '• 1 I S SQ " `�.. `�a.�'A % 6, f •'�-) �1'
11;4 .. " } , = ,� . r • `.'. v...�la t f •
0 Overall Development j ,' ~Wa
F --- Project Area i Tan
0 660 1,320 iii�f r •,,' �` +.,.f1'ct i./' 1
t Feet o::.ti \,\i, y`� - j •^`'fir `j
j 1 inch equals 1,320 feet - }� t r�'� \ / -f% }
Source: Landvoyage.com, •, j I ~ :✓, �a
USGS Kannapolis (NC) Quadrangle, 2000. I s f{
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for + ! ��„ / ✓y f`a j{
informational purposes only and was not prepared for,
is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. +' ;1` 4 �. •�4J�`„�j f. �jr'=. r ` N ' ,
Kellswater Phase 3 Lowrys Environmental &
City of Kannapolis, CabarruDs�County, North Carolina
USGS Ecological Services, LLC
Drawn By: SPP Date: 06-23-17 Rev. 1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
rprojec-7m gr. SPP Scale: 1"=1,320' Sheet: 1 of 13 803-992-0910

.Nk ,r
,e CU82 Poi. f- N
i2 )
CC8 2
Project Location
,- (± 256 acres)
EnD Ch
ni
3 t>--
r 'Ptos
1 t
CcD2
u02 '.
fl2
�IIN
C
MeDj
,82
-- _
..q
L
C U8 J --- `
`` C8
CUB?
EnB
2 Y
4
5n,
n B
B2
Soils Legend
- - SYMBOL FULL NAME
'CcB2 Cecil sandy day loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
p "Luc".,, CcD2 Cecil sandy day loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Ch
fl'l V Chewada sandy loam, frequently flooded
V _ CUB2 Cullen day loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
EnDCuD2 Cullen day loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
En6 Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
EnD Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
PaF Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes
PoF Poindexter loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Overall Boundary
Project Area
Location and extent is approximate.
Source: USDA Soil Survey of Cabarrus Countyi.b
(Not drawn to scale)
aF
Disclaimer The information depicted on this figure is for
formational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is
not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. C 08
G VL7
Kellswater Phase 3 Lowrys Environmental &
City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
USGS To o Map Ecological Services, LLC
Drawn By: SPP Date: 06-23-17 Rev. 1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Project Mgr. SPP Scale: Not to Scale Sheet: 2 of 13 803-992-0910

Kellswater Phase 3 Lowrys Environmental 8s
City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
USGS Topo Map Ecological Services LLC
Drawn By: SPP Date: 06-23-17 Rev. 1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Project Mgr. SPP Scale: 1"=1,320' Sheet: 3 of 13 803-992-0910

0
U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Invento Wetlands
June 28, 2017 Ths nep I. f« g.n.ral r.f.rence..N. Th. us Fsh and wtfdwfe
Servs M not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the
Wetlands base data shown on this map. AN wetlands "ad data should
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used naccordencewith thelayer metadatef-ridonthe
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Wellanrle Mapper web.Ae.
09 P � Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland [' Other
Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine
Project Area
Overall Boundary
Location and extent is approximate.
Source: USFWS NWI Mapper
(Scale: As Noted)
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for
informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is
not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
Kellswater Phase 3
City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
USGS Togo Mao
Drawn By: SPP I Date: 06-23-17 1 Rev.
Project Mgr. SPP I Scale: Not to Scale I Sheet: 4 of 13
aasanm we,enrc
Lowrys Environmental &
Ecological Services, LLC
1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
803-992-0910

Multiple (*vners
f
(±32.5
Kellswater Kellswater
Commercial Phase 3
(±54.2 -ac.) (±77 -ac.)
IngrafTI r.
(±44.2-a(..)
Kellswater
'Yevelopment
4
17,
Overcash
(±5 c.
4,
M

Multiple Owners Alternative
Kellswater Development
Location and extent is approximate.
Source: Cabarrus County, INC GIS
(Scale: Not to Scale)
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for
informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is
not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
Kellswater Phase 3 Lowrys Environmental 8s
City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Cabarrus County, NC GIS Aerial (Unknown Date) Ecological Services, LLC
Drawn By: SPP Date: 06-23-17 Rev. 1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Project Mgr. SPP Scale: Not to Scale Sheet: 6 of 13 803-992-0910

v
Lam.„..
�r -
j -i�-
,K
r
,
1 17
` � a
,. s i2 D a •'t
s e
I
Ingram
i Kellswater
evelopment
Ira 4.
t
�;4 - �.
err \•�^ � �',. �
'71 Ow
�._ 7v
}
Date: 06-23-17

Kellswater Commercial Alternative
Kellswater Development
Location and extent is approximate.
Source: Cabarrus County, NC GIS
(Scale: Not to Scale)
Disci mer The information depicted on this figure is for
informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is
not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
i����M � �l�► rir+W.#�
Kellswater Phase 3 Lowrys Environmental &
City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Cabarrus County, NC GIS Aerial (Unknown Date) Ecological Services, LLC
Drawn By: SPP Date: 06-23-17 Rev. 1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Project Mgr. SPP Scale: Not to Scale Sheet: 8 of 13 803-992-0910

12:
A
V
JPt.
Kellswater
evelopment
sir
7
r-
Kellswater
Phase
3
Lowrys Environmental
City of Koa�nnapolis,
Cabarrus
County,
North
Carolina
[Drawn ;By:
Cabarrus
SPP
County,
Date:
NC GIs
06-23-17
Aerial
(Unknown
Date)
Rev.
Ecological Services, LLC
1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Project
Mgr.
SPP
Scale:
Not
to
Scale
Sheet:
9
of
13
803-992-0910

Kellswater Phase 3 Alternative
Kellswater Development
Location and extent is approximate.
Source: Cabarrus County, NC GIS
(Scale: Not to Scale)
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for
informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is
not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
•"4000mootifMW
Kellswater Phase 3 Lowrys Environmental 8v
City of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Cabarrus County, NC GIS Aerial (Unknown Date) Ecological Services, LLC
Drawn By: SPP Date: 06-23-17 Rev. 1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Project Mgr. SPP Scale: Not to Scale Sheet: 10 of 13 803-992-0910

—I_., w wz�p
��
■
pmpesad Phwe 1C
GRAPHIC SCALE
Iwetal
E%Is1bg Phar 2A
�,ULSWA'rep
IS It 1 DCsg
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Project:
The Village at Kellswater Bridge
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Developer:
MRECV - KW, LLC
cro
L Star Management, LLC
516 N. West Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Phone:
919-256-1981
Zoning:
TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development)
Parcels Ovmed by MRECV
Aueavis Acreage Density
Phase (AcJ
Developed tmrvomt (Unils/Ac.)
Irmo Ino i t oosal
No es:
-TND Master Plan is subjadto applimble Kannapalis UDO in place atdme of
approval.
-Lot lines, street lombona, common open space. and density, in proposed phases are
shown as mncepWal and subject te revision by the developer during dna final design
pmmas.
Max Density or Development shall not =ad 960 Units (3.75 UnitrJAc.)
- Common Open Spam shall not be lass Bran 12.81 A'(5%)
-
AN lob tees than 50' in width shall be acrossed by an albywey.
-TND Master Plan has been ornpiled dom available dela and sources inducting
wrdad final plate, existing boundary surveyc, Duke Poway Easement/right of way
maps, nobted field surveys and Cabanas County GIS. Parcel lines and --g-
are
approxina% and subject ti, Final Plat/Survay.
-Developer is ieq—d to update development table with submittel of Preliminary and
Final Plate.
- Fmnt eetbacks shall be 6 feet Garage tam shall b , set at a minimum of 20 teett,am
right of way for front load garages.
- Street acape furnishings shall be consistent will current developed phases.
Updated TND Subdivision Master Plan
May 17, 2017
® Common Open Space Area (Platted)
Me Management
516 N. West street
Rsbigh. NonfCarolro 27601
P'. (918) 2561881

T
R LL FOR LOTS
'OTENTI AL STREAM FI
-OR LOTS
. .......
>
LL
---- - - ------ - -
-
—T
I t
VCULVERT PERMIT
ol, 21-F OF STREAM
NWP#29
SAW-2016-CO410
POTENTI AL VVETLAND FI LL
FOR LOTS r gat

STREAM IMPACT
APPROX. 20OLF
POTENTIAL ROAD LOOP
WITH CULVERT AND LOT FILL
OEVELOPMENT WOR"710N
40
IN
1 J
I "Wi
PERMITTED CULVERT
CROSSING PER VAIP#29
SAW -2016-00410
112LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM
APPPDX. 61 OOSF
OF WETLAND FILL
GRAPKIC Xmx
-777 1
•
4
----- -------
1 J
I "Wi
PERMITTED CULVERT
CROSSING PER VAIP#29
SAW -2016-00410
112LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM
APPPDX. 61 OOSF
OF WETLAND FILL
GRAPKIC Xmx

ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
(Sheets 1-5)

IMPACTED WETLANDS
CUMULATIVE IMPACT
S�. Type Length/Area GRAPHIC SCALE
DE
Impact #1
Stream
67.00 LF/0 003 AC.
Impact #1A
Wetlana
0.036 AC.
Impact #2
Stream
116.00 LF/0.005 AC.
Impact #3
Stream
20.00 LF10.002 AC.
Total Wetlands
0.036 AC,
Total Streams
205.00 LF10.010 AC.
KELLSWATER PHASE 3
City of Kannapolis, North Carolina
Drawn By: RSN Date: Jul 15 2016 Rev:June 1
Engineer: PLM Scale:l" = 400' Sheet:
)02 AC
400 0 200 400 am
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 400ft.
R. Joe Harris & Associates, Inc.
Engineering . land Surveying . Planning
Management
1'P lien Cuu IMw.9tiie IOI.ItN ML9(`MMW ,em�an Www

IMPACTED WETLANDS
CUMULATW IMPACT
8C. Type Length/Area GRAPHIC SCALE
DE
Impact #1
Stream
67.00 LF/0.003 AC.
Impact#1A
Wetland
0.036 AC.
Impact #2
Stream
118.00 LF/0.005 AC.
Impact #3
Stream
20.00 LFID.002 AC.
Total Wetlands
0.036 AC.
Total Streams
205.00 LF10.010 AC
KELLS WATER PHASE 3
City of Kannapolis, North Carolina
Drawn By: RSN Date: Jul 15 2016 Rev:June
Enaineer: PLM Scale: V = 400' Sheet:
W
102 AC
400 0 200 4D0 800
( IN FEET )
I inch = 400ft.
o�
R. Joe Harris & Associates, Inc.
Engineering . Land surveying • Planning
Management

IMPACT #1-1A PLAN VIEW - WETLAND
10' RSOD SETBACK
WETLANDS IMPACTS (THIS VIEW): 0.036 AC. (1580.79 SQFT)
STREAM IMPACTS (THIS VIEW): ±67.00 LF/0.003 AC.
Drawn
KELLSWATER PHASE 3
City of Kannapolis, North Carolina
July 15, 2016 Rev:June 16, 201
111= 50' Sheet:
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 5o 100
( IN FEET )
I inch = 50 ft.
R. Joe Harris & Associates, Inc.
Engineering . Land surveying • .Planning
Management
0711-- 0 . &kl Illi. TM M11L WD7015 .Mtl MJ_17p:

IMPACT #2 PLAN VIEW - WETLAND
STREAM IMPACTS (THIS VIEW): ±118.00 LF/0.005 AC.
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 50 ft.
KELLSWATER PHASE 3
City of Kannapolis, North Carolina R. Joe Harris & Associates, Inc.
Engineering . Land Surveying • Planning
Drawn B : RSN Date: July15 2016 Rev:June 15, 2017 Management
- - "" flllkn('wry llmc, Wiilo 1111.1-w1 MAI.9C M✓n9 IAVJ',Hp!-1'9G
Enaineer: PLM Scale: 1" = 50' Sheet:

IMPACT #3 PLAN VIEW - WETLAND
RJI•I KELLSWATER PHASE 3
VARIABLE WIDTH LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
RSOD SLOPE BUFFER
50' RSOD SLOPE
20' RSOD VEGETATED BUFFER
��BUFFER (PROTECTED STREAM)
STREAM
STREAM IMPACTS (THIS VIEW): (20.00 LF/0.002 AC.
FUTURE IRISH BUFFALO GREENWAY
TRAIL WITH 30' PUBLIC ACCESS
EASEMENT
KELLSWATER PHASE 3
City of Kannapolis, North Carolina
Drawn Bv: RSN Date: Julv 15. 2016 Rev:June 1
" = 50' ISheet:
IMPACT 3
LF/0,002 AC.
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 50 ft.
R. Joe Harris & Associates, Inc.
Engineering . Land Surveying • Planning
Management
!P Ihl Ca Vm BUYu ILII.F,W MAWMW MAA

APPENDIX A
Nationwide Permit (SAW -2012-00410)
Jurisdictional Determination

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. SAW -2016-00410 County: Cabarrus U.S.G.S. Quad: Kannapolis
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee: MRECV-KW LLC A Delaware LLC /Attn: Mr. Alexander
Address: 13860 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suitel30
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone Number: 704-930-7501
Size (acres): 112 LF Nearest Town: Charlotte
Nearest Waterway: Irish Buffalo Creek Coordinates: 35.46665 N, -80.65874 W
River Basin/ HUC: Rocky Watershed; Upper Pee Dee Basin, HUC: 03040105
Location description: The >200 acre proposed project site is located between Keadv Mill Loop and Irish Buffalo Creek in
Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
Description of projects area and activity: This verification authorizes permanent impacts to 112 LF of perennial stream channel
associated with the construction of a residential development.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number or Nationwide Permit Number: 29
SEE ATTACHED RGP or NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted application and attached information dated November 13, 2015 . Any violation of the
attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration
order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide/regional authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide/regional permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide/regional permit. If the nationwide/regional permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is
modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide/regional permit, activities
which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide/regional
permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide/regional permit's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or
revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Steve Kichefski at 828-271-7980, ext. 234 or steven.l.kichefski*usace.army.mil.
KICHEFSKI.STEVEN.L
ON <=US,o--U S. fmveenment. wi=0.A, ou=VK,
Corps Regulatory Official: •1386908539 "�w°16.11 �� °°°U8S39 Date: February 29, 2016
om.: mie.ozn ic:.w: ia.m�ao
Steve Kichefski
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2017

SAW -2016-00410
Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ® Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project
area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
C. ❑ There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID: SAW -
Basis for Determination:
The project area contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Region(version 2.0). These wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of
ordinary high water marks. The stream channel in the project area is an unnamed tributary (UT) to Irish Buffalo Creek which
flows into the Rocky Watershed; Upper Pee Dee Basin; HUC: 03040105. The UT to Irish Buffalo Creek flows to the Atlantic
Ocean via Irish Buffalo Creek, Cold Water Creek, the Rocky River and the Pee Dee River. The Pee Dee River is a Section 10
Navigable -In -Fact water starting at the Blewett Falls Dam.
Remarks: A portion of this project area was included with the verification/JD SAW -2005-31764 issued on June 20,
2005. A follow up field visit was conducted by Steve Kichefski on June 18, 2013 and this PJD is based on the updated maps
submitted November 13, 2015.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information ('Phis information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B
and C above).
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60 days of the date of issue below.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**

SAW-2016-00410
KICHEFSKI.STEVEN.L. 1386908 mag=uso U..S, Goo-nmeKL oa DoQo P08539
F
Corps Regulatory Official: 539 Date: 2016.0 2916:30r.53-0'001 386908539
Steve Kichefski
Issue Date of JD: February 29, 2016
Expiration Date of JD: N/A
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at http://re rug, latory.usacesurve yam.
Copy furnished:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1) Please be advised that if additional impacts to waters of the U.S., either on this property or on/adjacent
to this property and associated with this project/activity, are proposed at a later date, those impacts will
be combined with the current impacts to waters of the U.S. and will be reviewed cumulatively.
Generally, compensatory mitigation will be required if individual or cumulative (i.e., past and present)
losses or degradation of waters of the U.S. are greater than 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent
stream channel and/or 0.1. acre of wetland. Additionally, cumulative impacts that result in the loss or
degradation of greater than 300 linear feet of perennial or intermittent* stream channel, and/or 0.5
acre of wetland, will be processed under an Individual Permit. This verification of the use of the
Nationwide Permit Program for this project does not imply that this office will necessarily approve any
future proposal to impact waters of the U.S. on this property and/or associated with this
project/activity.
* The District Commander has the ability to waive the 300 linear foot limit for intermittent streams on
a case-by-case basis. All requests for waiver must be in writing and shall include rationale for the
request.
2)

Action ID Number: SAW -2016-00410
Permit Type: NWP 29
County: Cabarrus
Permittee: MRECV-KW LLC A Delaware LLC /Attn: Mr. Alexander
Project Name: KellswaterDevelopment
Date Verification Issued: February 29, 2016
Project Manager: Steve Kichefski
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this
certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Attn.: CESAW-RG-A
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may result in the
Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I administrative penalty, or
initiating other appropriate legal action.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with
the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit
conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAII.
Applicant: MRECV-KW LLC A Delaware LLC
/Attn: Mr. Alexander
File Number: SAW-SAW-2016-00410 Date: February 29, 2016
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http:i/www.usace.armv.mil/Missions 0\ ilWorkslRe lug latoiyProgramandPermits.aspx
or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Steve Kichefski
CESAD-PDO
828-271-7980
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room l OM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportuni to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.: Steve Kichefski, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room I OM 15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPENDIX B
NCDMS Acceptance Letter

Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL OVAL ITY
June 26, 2017
Scott Monday
MRECV-KW LLC c/o LStar Land
8430 Rea Road
Charlotte, NC 28277
Project: Kellswater Phase 3 Development
ROY COOPER
MICHAEL S, REGAN
Expiration of Acceptance: December 26, 2017
County: Cabarrus
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the
table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation
program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must
also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with
the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and
payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an
applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact
amounts shown below.
Impact
-
—
River CU Location
Basin (8 -digit HUC)
— - - —
Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool
T
I WarmRi arian Non -Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Yadkin 03040105
0 0
317 0.036 0
0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation
will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC
02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Paul Petitgout, agent
Sincerely,
James. B Stanfill
Asst --Management Supervisor
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality , Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

APPENDIX C
NCSAM Worksheets

------------
Arrmmnanioc I Icor RAmnuni w -moi— -) i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. It multiple stream reaches will be evaluated
property, identity and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the
Manual Tor detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section it an
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be r,
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/ SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (it any Kellswater Phase 3 2. Date of evaluati(May 2017
3. Applicant/owner nal - 4. Assessor name/drganizat LES
5. County: CaDarrus 6. Nearest named water bot
7. River Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee on USGS 7.5 -minute quaf Irish Buffalo Creek
S. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower- end of assessmen 35.469 N -80.655 W
STREAM INFORMATION: {depth and width can be approximations
9. Site number {show on attached rr Impact # 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (67
11. Channel depth from bed (in rittle, it presen _o76p of b<3 ` ;Unable to assess ch Annei depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (fie 2 13. Is assessment r -e -a -ER a swamp stream Yes No
14. Feature type: rEPerennial tlow[ n ermi en ow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains {M} �-]Pied mont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain {{
16. Estimated geomorphic 1
valley shape (skip for a —`..�'"— b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skipEESize 1 (< 0.1 mit) � jSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) Size 4 (>_ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluate Yes No It Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed I 11 111 IV V
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian butter rule in ette Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical HabitatIs spec
19. Are additional stream intormation/suPe emen ary measurements included In nes p r CAI-Tlfln V=C
-L. Lnannel water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction -assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riftie-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restr
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on filo
the assessment reach {examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gi
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below
B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existi
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reform,
these disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instabi
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concretf
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area interaction - streamside area metric
Consider tar the Lett Bani (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that a1
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through strew
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching ).including mosgl
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no rloodplain/inters
{examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, till, stream in

uiai uptlui 1 ui i wuu rows inrougn streamside area) or too much tloodplain/intertidal zone access (examp
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditchingJ) or tloodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessr
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors —assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, strea
B Lxcessive sedimentation (burying of stream teatures or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality probler
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicatingdegraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in t
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors 8.
8. Recent Weather —watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, Dl drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream —assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess'? It Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Suri
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors incluc
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening (tor example, rip -rap), recent dredging,
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b Check all that occur (occurs it > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic moss
e F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) a m G Submerged aquatic vegetati:.)n
B Multiple sticks and/or [eat packs and/or emerg H Low -tide retugia (pools)
vegetation o I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) " !M21 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or robtV K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
......REMAININ13 QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS***`�"
11. Bedtorm and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream'? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
llb Bedtorm evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Ritfle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedtorm absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Lite)
11c. In rittles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present
absent, Rare (R) = present but 510%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70`.
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools tilled with sediment'? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal N',arsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Lite — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in -stream aquatic lite assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
It No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metr No Water Other
12b, Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the a55essment reach (iuoK in riffles, pools, tnen snags)? It Yep
all that apply. it No, skip to Metric 13.
>1 Numbers over columns reter to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 strew
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and alga(mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)

t-aaalsny larvae ( I ncnoptera I FJ)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/craytish/shrim p)
Damseltly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera (EJ)
Megaloptera (aldertly, tishtly, dobsontly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonetly larvae (Piecoptera (PJ)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: di
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley t.
Consider for the Lett Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or V
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-relea
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment it present)
F None of the above
17. Basetlow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump inst<
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sedi
C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment re;
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leat-on" condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Butter Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded butter" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A >_ 100-teet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-teet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-teet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-teet wide
E E t E < 10-teet wide or no trees
20. Butter Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Butter Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest

u u ivon-mature woody vegetation or moditied vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 teet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Butter Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for lett bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate it listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), doe
is within 30 teet of stream (< 30 teet), or is between 30 to 50 Leet of stream (30-50 teet).
It none of the tollowing stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 teet 30-50 Leet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turt
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip tor Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for lett bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Butter Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian butter or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Butter — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated butter is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-te(
LB RB
A A The total length of butter breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of butter breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of butter breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 teet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 Leet of each bank or to the edge of the watersned (whichever comes tir
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed o'
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely compo:
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop atter clear -cutting or cle<
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the e
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities con
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or n
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
It No, select one of the following reasons No Water Other
25b Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
a.4
xi�.HlY ••
L: �L'

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Kellswater Phase 3 Date of Evaluation May 2617
Stream Category Plot Assessor Name/Organization LEES
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stablllty
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh in -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC SAW FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
user Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Kellswater Phase 3 2. Date of evaluation: May 2017
3. Applicant/owner name: MRECV-KW, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: LEES
5. County: Cabarrus 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Irish Buffalo Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.469 N -80.657 W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Impact # 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 118
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 1- Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes f~ No
14. Feature type: ('- Perennial flow (: Intermittent flow r Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION.
15. NC SAM Zone: t^ Mountains (M) s^+ Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) { ` Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for f^` a (Z b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip (o Size 1 (< 0"1 mi`) r Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi) r Size 4 (a 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes (- No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( -C" 1 (" 11 r Ili c iv (" v)
f- Essential Fish Habitat f- Primary Nursery Area F High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
F Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect f Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r- fish f'- 303(d) List I- CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
(` Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? (' Yes Co-,, No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
(- A Water throughout assessment reach.
C` B No flow, water in pools only.
(� C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
(" A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction 2t fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb ,:dthin
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
l: B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
(- B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
(� A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
(-` B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of Instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
C" A < 10% of channel unstable
C B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
t- C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
C" A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
(: B (: B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
i" C (" C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidel zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,

❑isrupoon OT nooe bows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, u; natura! water discoloration: oil sheen, stream foam)
r- B Excessive sedimentation (burying cf stream features or intertidal zone)
F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment -each and causing a water quality problem
1— D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors;
F- E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r- F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r- G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone iremov2l burning. regular mowing. destruction. etc.)
I— I Other: ;explain in "No'es/Sketch" section)
r71 J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
f- A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
re C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
Yes t7: No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. f" Yes fi No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap), recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
F A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses a w r'-- F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
F7 B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o 2 , F H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation rn t o r I Sand bottom
F C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) a) e F J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
r— D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v i K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r— E Little or no habitat
**"*"*"************"****"**""***"'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS*"*******"****"
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ^ Yes t': No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
W A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
R, B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r— C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but:5 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
t— Bedrock/saprolite
r Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
: ` Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
f" +e >r' i-" Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
r i Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
<`
f— n C' Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
t— Detritus
r 3 f— Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d, r Yes .: No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. f* Yes (` No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. i No Water f` Other:
12b. ti Yes (— No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. if No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
F i Adult frogs
r— Aquatic reptiles
i� i Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
f-" 1— Beetles (including water pennies)

r r c;adorstly larvae (Trichoptera [T))
I- (- Asian clam (Corbicula )
F_ r Crustacean(isopod/amph ipod/crayfish(shrimp)
7 f- Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F- 17- Dipterans (true flies)
T- I- Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F_ F Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
R f- Midges/mosquito larvae
I— i Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r_ I- Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
f" f-' Other fish
F f- Salamanders/tadpoles
f� f-- Snails
f r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
(- F Tipulid larvae
F f Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
t- A r A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
r B r B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i C t"' C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
r A r A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 6 inches deep
C- B ( B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r C r C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
r Y f- Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
fo N f: N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
f-- B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
rW C Obstruction that passes some flow during iow-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
f D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
@ E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
T_ B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r- C Urban stream ( 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
i:` A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
(- C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
f` A C A (- A f" A > 100 -feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
f": B f': B to S is B From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
C' C <- C f-- C f` C From 30 to < 50 -feet wide
it D f- D r D D From 10 to < 30 -feet wide
(` E r E r E d E < 10 -feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
t-" A r A Mature forest

to D to a r4on-mature wcoay vegetation or modified vegetation structure
t C r C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
C D D Maintained shrubs
r E r E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: I✓
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r A r A r A f A (' A A Row crops
(" B (-6 (-6 r B r B f" B Maintained turf
C` C r C r C i C i C C` C Pasture (no livestock)lcommerc ai horticulture
f D i D f` D f D r D r D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width),
LB RB
f+ A C A Medium to high stem density
4 ` B r B Low stem density
i" C C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 -feet wide.
LB RB
A f: A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
f B C' B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
t— C t— C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
f^ A f` A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
C: B ; B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present; but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
f' C C' C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. f"' Yes r No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. L: No Water r Other:
25b, Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 i B 46 to < 67 f C 67 to < 79 f 0 79 to < 230 C E :a 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Kellswater Phase 3
Stream Category Pbl
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Date of Evaluation May 2017
Assessor Namelorganization LEES
Kin
I f l
NO
[n+Mr i++n +
USACEI
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
61EDIUM
(3) Streams ide Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA ^
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
--NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
- NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stabil;ty
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Cnannel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Kellswater Phase 3 2. Date of evaluation: May 2017
3. Applicant/owner name: MRECV-KW, LLC 4. Assessor namelorganization: LEES
5. County: Cabarrus 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Irish Buffalo Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.469 N -80.655 W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map). Impact # 3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 20
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 F Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 13. is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes f" No
14. Feature type: (- Perennial flow 6V Intermittent flow f- Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: f Mountains (M) f: Piedmont (P) t Inner Coastal Plain (I) f` Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L J
valley shape (skip for f a ��✓ t; b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip f: Size 1 (< 0.1 min) r~ Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) C Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mr) r Size 4 (a 5 mi)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (+ Yes (` No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
I- Section 10 water f- Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r 1 (" II r III r IV r V)
r Essential Fish Habitat f-- Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
F Publicly owned property f NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect F Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(- Anadromous fish f- 303(d) List f-' CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
F- Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? C' Yes f+; No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
t+ A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
( C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
f" A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
G B Not A
3, Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r' A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
(-*.B Not A.
4, Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
(: A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
i B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10% of channel unstable
r: B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
r` C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r` A r" A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
(: B (+ B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
'r C r~ C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,

disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplainlntertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r— Discolored water in stream or intertidal gone (mlky white, blue. unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
f"' B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
I— C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
f- D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
F E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in *,he assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae to stream or intertidal zone
F- Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other. (expla;n in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r7o J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
,{ ' B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
{: C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
f' Yes t+ No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10, Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. (— Yes i No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
f A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w I— F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)p cEa F G Submerged aquatic vegetation
f B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation x o r I Sand bottom
f C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) CD r m I` J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
F D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots (— K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
f E Little or no habitat
"*—'—'****'"'--*'**—"*"*REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS--*-*—*"""""
11. Bedform and Substrate— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ila. r Yes t No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
f7 A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 e)
17 B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
F C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box In each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but S 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
r t: r f" C°" Bedrock/saprolite
C° ro, r i C Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
C f• r a: r Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
r r C: C C Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
{" r C+ ( C- Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
C` r C+ t'" r Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
f"` re r i Detritus
JLT f r t {" Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 id. f Yes C: No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. {e Yes r No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. i ` No Water �- Other:
12b. r-" Yes C— No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals' for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
F- f— Adult frogs
I- i Aquatic reptiles
!+ r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
f r Beetles (including water pennies)

i,- F_ larvae (Trichoptera
F_ Asian clam (Corbicula )
i• r"` Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrim p)
! l- Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r- Dipterans (true flies)
F_ Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F_ r- Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
f 71 I- Midgestmosquito larvae
r- T Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F r- Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
l" (- Other fish
F f-
I" r- Snails
r- r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
(� l- Tipulid larvae
r r- Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r' A r A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i ` B r B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
t"' C r C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C A ; A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
(- B r` B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(" C ("' C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
("' Y i- Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
re N re N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
F B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
F D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
I✓ E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
t- F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r` A Evidence of substantial Ovate- withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r- B Obstruction not passing flow during low `low periods affecting the assessment reach (ex watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r- C Urban stream (_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
f- D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
(e F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
r: A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
t- B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
("` A (" A r' A (' A > 100 -feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
(` B (: B to- B ro B From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
("` C r C ("` C r` C From 30 to < 50 -feet wide
r D t- D r D r D From 10 to < 30 -feet wide
t"' E (- E r E (. E < 10 -feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
i A i- A Mature forest

fi, B i* B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
i C + C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
I- D r D Maintained shrubs
i E i— E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: (�
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LS RB LB RB LB RB
r r f -A [A ("A ' A Row crops
r B I— B (` B B i' B {' B Maintained turf
i" C r C {' C r C C L— C Pasture (no livestock)leommorcial horiCUltUre
r D C D r D (— D f-' D ?— D Pasture (aclive livestock use),
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
t: A i A Medium to high stem density
i_ B f B Low stem density
r C r C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 -feet wide.
LB RB
G A f+ A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
ti B f-` B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
t" C f C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A t— A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
(0- B }T B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. t- Yes f: No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ( No Water i Other:
250. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 ( B 46 to < 67 1— C 67 to < 79 t` D .79 to < 230 t E = 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Kellswater Phase 3
Stream Category Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (YIN)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Date of Evaluation May 2017
Assessor Name/Organization LEES
rani
NO
kin
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tioal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC
user Manual version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation, If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT! SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Kellswater Phase 3 2. Date of evaluation: May 2017
3. Applicantlowner name: MRECV-KW, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: LEES
5. County: Cabarrus 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin-PeeDee on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Irish Buffalo Creek
S. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.466, -80.659
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Prev. Impact (NWP) 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet). 3 r- Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13 Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes ir' No
14. Feature type: (+ Perennial flow (- Intermittent flow t— Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: r Mountains (M) (+ Piedmont (P) C' Inner Coastal Plain (1) ( Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic \ J
valley shape (skip for ( a y—��r: b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip (: Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) f"- Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi') i— Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) {' Size 4 (? 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? fi Yes f-' No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r— Section 10 water r— Classified Trout Waters r-- Water Supply Watershed ( (` I C li r III r IV (— V)
r Essential Fish Habitat (- Primary Nursery Area (` High Quality Waters/Outstarding Resource Waters
f— Publicly owned property r- NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r-" Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List f CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
i— Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r— Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in " Notes(Sketch" section or attached? r: Yes ((" No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
G' A Water throughout assessment reach.
f-' B No flow, water in pools only.
C-0 No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
C A At least 100/6 of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction Qr fiIl to the
point of obstructing flow ora channe! choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the charnel, tidal gates).
is B Not A
3_ Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
C A A majority of the assessment reach has altered patte,-n (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
t: 8 Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile—assessment reach metric
fi A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active rank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10% of channel unstable
t: B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
i C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction—streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
(� B C# B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
i C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access (examples;
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching)) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
I' A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky wrote, blue, unnaturai water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
F B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

I G Nquceacle evioence of pollutant discharges ertennq the as.sessmNnt each ri)d c;rs nd a „iter qua!^y problem
r- D Odor (Inc', Including natural sulfide odors)
7 E Current pubt,shed or collected data indicating degraded ria r quality it the assessment rear_n C le source it ;he "Notes/Sketch'
section.
I"- F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r- G Excessive algae in stream or irtertical zone
r- H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal. Owning, regular mowinp, destruction. etc.)
f- Other. _ (c -,/plain 'n "tk: cs-IS�f lcr," sect on)
i✓ J Little to no stressors
8_ Recent Weather -watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r"` A Drought conditions gnd no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
t` B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
t- C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
C Yes C.` No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. C' Yes t^ No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap), recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r- A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m a ( F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)F E 1- G Submerged aquatic vegetation
11 B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o - a r- H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation x o r- I Sar.d bottom
f- C Multiple snags and logs (including tap trees) r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
r- D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v -5 r- K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
I- E Little or no habitat
"""*"*""'* -REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS"`""'"'"""'""'""""""'"""^
11. Bedform and Substrate- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ila, C Yes % No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F" A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
1`7 B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r-- C Natural bedfonn absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged.
Check at feast one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present buts 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70`/0. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
t f- t% C` t Bedrock/saprolite
i% f- i f i Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
C' Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
C C C+ r r Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
t i r C Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
C 4- r- t Detritus
t: t r r k— Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. t" Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. %-- Yes (- No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r No Water i Other:
12b. 4 Yes i- No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
F_ I- Adult frogs
r r- Aquatic reptiles
f' r-- Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
I- ry Beetles (including water pennies)
F_ r- Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T;)
I- F- clam (Corbicula )
I" r- Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r- Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r % r- Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
I-" r- Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
I- I- Midgeslmosquito larvae
I Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F_ r- Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
)- r Otherfish
F- F_ Salamanders/tadpoles
r✓ f- Snails
1 F_ Stonefly larvae (Piecoptera [P))
r- r- Tipulid larvae
r-7 r- Worms/leeches

13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r A (' A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
£ B r B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
t C % C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
(— A r A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
f` B C-8 Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
- C f` C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
(— Y C Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
f:N f:N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r— A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r- B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
(— C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
f" D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
W E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
1— F None of the above
17. Basefiow Detractors -- assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
I— A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for hump installation)
1— B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (e:c watertight cam. sediment deposit)
f C Urban stream (.- 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r— D Evidence that the stream -Side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
i-- E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
i✓ F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on' condition.
f-` A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
f` B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
(— C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width —streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
(" A f` A f-- A f^ A z 100 -feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B t: B f B C B From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
i C i C (+ C t: C From 30 to < 50 -feet wide
t— D n D (- D f' D From 10 to < 30 -feet wide
f' E f" E (— E i E < 10 -feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
i A r A Mature forest
(: B f: B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
f` C f C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
f" D r D Maintained shrubs
(— E (— E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: 1`71
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
L6 RB LB RB LB RB
f A (- A f` A f` A f .A C' A Row crops
(` B (_6 f" B f` B B i 6 Nleintained tur.
C C ,'"' C irC f` C f— C' C Pasture (no iivestockVcomme-ciai Iia1:Cuitu;(3
C' D r D (— D s D (— D (— D Pasture (active Ivestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
C A f: A Medium to high stem density
C-8 f` B Low stem density
C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 -feet wide.

Lb Xb
!: A t: A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
{' B B The total length of buffer breaks is between: 25 and 50 percent.
C_ i C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
f A {„ A Vegetation is close to undisturbed ii species present and their p-oportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
(. B .: B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is stili largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing pr
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata o,L
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
i C t C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large porton of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed. of a singe species gr no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. f— Yes is No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons.f No Water .^+ Other: Aquatic habitat present
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conducfvity measurement (.units of microsiemens per centimete ).
(— A :46 f B 43 to < G7 i i 5? to < ; 9 i D 79 to � 230 i E 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Keflswater Phase 3
Stream Category Pb1
Notes or Field Assessment Form (YiN)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Date of Evaluation May 2017
Assessor Name/Organization LEES
YES
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH -
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM -
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
Logy
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
Overall
MEDIUM