20090306 Ver 2_401 Application_20091009

1-1
CWS
?, Carolina Wetland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 - Phone
704-527-1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
off- o'3 C) LP V24
Date: 10-09-09
CWS Project 2008-2508
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
PA lig
0 @ r=
OCT 1 3 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
IMETLAYDS AND STQRMWATER BRANCH
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached []Under separate cover via the following items:
? Prints ? Plans
? Copy of letter ? Change order
? JD Package ? Specifications
? Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS
KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
10/09/09 1 7 1 The Oaks at Camden NWP 29 and WQC No. 3705 - RESUBMITTAL
11 2 10/09/09 1 Application fee check ($570) 11
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
?For approval ?Approved as submitted []Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ?Approved as noted []Submit copies for distribution
?As requested []Returned for corrections []Return corrected prints
?For review and comment ?For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Cyndi,
Please find the attached permit application resubmittal and application fee for the Oaks at Camden Site in Union
County, NC. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this project
Copy to: File
Thank you, 4"d
omas Blackwell
Project Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
Of Corps Submittal Cover Sheet

Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name The Oaks at Camden
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Ron R. Rushing Construction, Mr. Ron Rushing
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Carolina Wetland Services Inc.; Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: Old Camden Road, Monroe, NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Monroe, NC
8
County: Union
9. Lat: N35.04201° Long: W80.47280° (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Watson, NC, dated 1991
11. Waterway: UT's to Stewarts Creek and Richardson Creek
12. Watershed: Yadkin River (HU# 03040105)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 29
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Begin Date
Keywords:
r ? ? ? CWS
Carolina Wetland Services
October 7, 2009
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (v)
704-527-1133 (fax)
Mr. Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
and Water Quality Certification No. 3705 - RESUBMITTAL
The Oaks at Camden Site
Monroe, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2008-2508
The Oaks at Camden Site is located in Monroe, North Carolina, on Old Camden Road approximately
Yz mile south of the Old Camden Road - New Salem Road intersection (USGS Site Map, enclosed).
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 114 acres into a single-family residential
development comprised of 75 lots. In addition, four 10-acre farm lots will be sold separately, in an
undeveloped condition. Mr. Ron Rushing has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to
provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. Please see the attached, signed Agent
Certification of Authorization Form.
Applicant: Ron R. Construction, Mr. Ron Rushing
Contact: Frontier Land Surveying, Mr. Jeff Gordon
Mailing Address: 1394-B Walkup Avenue, Monroe, NC 28110
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-283-9726
Street Address of Project: Old Camden Road, Monroe, NC
Waterway: UT's to Stewarts Creek and Richardson Creek
Basin: Yadkin River (HU# 03040105)
City: Monroe
County: Union
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.04201°, W80.47280°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Watson, North Carolina, 1991
Project History
A NWP 29 and Water Quality Certification were originally applied for on March 4, 2009. A NWP
No. 29 (SAC-2009-00545)was issued for the project on April 27, 2009 (attached). The North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) conducted a site visit on April 24, 2009 and a request
for additional information letter was issued on April 28, 2009 (NCDWQ Project Number 09-0306). It
was not possible to respond to the comments within the time required, therefore the project was
withdrawn. CWS is hereby reapplying for a WQC No. 3705 for this project, and applying for changes
to the NWP No. 29. The comments arising from the field visit are addressed in this reapplication.
These include an additional driveway crossing located on parcels that were not part of the original
project area, and temporary impacts associated with septic drain fields.
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
The Oaks at Camden October 7, 2009
Nationwide Permit No 29 CWS Proiect No. 2008-2508
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is agricultural with large adjacent wooded areas. Dominant
vegetation within the project area consists of white oak (Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), green catbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and common blackberry (Rubus argutus).
According to the Soil Survey of Union County', on-site soils consist of Baden channery silt loam
(BaB and BaC), Baden channery silty clay loam (BdB2 and BdC2), Goldston very channery silt loam
(GoE), and Chewacla silt loam (ChA). Baden and Goldston soils are well-drained and exhibit
moderate permeability, while Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained and exhibit moderate
permeability. Chewacla soils are listed by the NRCS as having potential inclusions of hydric soil for
Union County2.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On March 6, 2007 CWS's Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright delineated (flagged in the field) and
classified on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) -
Routine On-Site Determination Method. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were classified according to
recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)3 and USACE guidance. NCDWQ Stream
Classification Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets representative of Streams
A - C, E, H, J and K are enclosed (SCP1 - SCP7). This delineation included the subject property and
an additional adjacent tract which is not included in this permit submittal (Figure 1, enclosed)
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate that there are six jurisdictional stream channels
(Streams A, B, E, H, J, and K), two jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands AA and BB), and one
jurisdictional open water area (Pond A) located within the project area (Figure 1, enclosed). Routine
On-Site Data Forms representative of Wetlands AA and BB as well as non jurisdictional upland areas
have been enclosed (DPI - DP2). On-Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. include Stewarts Creek,
Richardson Creek, and unnamed tributaries to Stewarts Creek and Richardson Creek. Stewarts Creek.
and Richardson Creek are within the Yadkin River basin. (HU# 03040105)4 and are classified as
"Class C" waters by the NCDWQ. On-Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were surveyed using a
sub-meter GPS unit and total approximately 3.02 acres (131,551 square feet). Linear footage and
acreage of on-site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1.
1 United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina
2 MRCS Hydric Soils of North Carolina, December 15, 1995.
3 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999. Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0.
a ,HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
2
The Oaks at Camden October 7, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 29 CWS Project No. 2008-2508
Table 1. Summarv of On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Potential
Jurisdiction Classification Approximate Length
(if) Approximate
Acreage
Stream A Perennial (RPW) 2,656 0.25
Stream B Unimportant Intermittent
(Non-RP 369 0.01
Stream B Perennial (RPW) 900 0.05
Stream E Unimportant Intermittent
(Non-RP W) 203 0.01
Stream E Perennial (RPW) 1,916 0.23
Stream H (Stewarts Creek) Perennial (RPW) 2,065 0.57
Stream J (Richardson Creek) Perennial (RPW) 2,168 1.24
Stream K Perennial (RPW) 101 0.01
Stream Subtotal: 8,082 2.37
Wetland AA Forested N/A 0.16
Wetland BB Forested N/A 0.36
Wetland Subtotal: N/A 0.52
Pond A Open Water N/A 0.13
On-Site Total: 8,082 3.02
Perennial Streams
On-Site perennial stream channels (Streams A, B, E, H, J, and K) are located throughout the central
portion of the property and exhibited average ordinary high water widths of 3 to5 feet (Streams A, B,
E, and K) and 20 to 25 feet (Streams H and J), significant aquatic life including crayfish and benthic
macroinvertebrates, perennial flow, and substrate consisting of silt to large cobbles
(Figure 1, enclosed). USACE Stream Quality Assessment scores for these chamnels ranged from 49 to
65 out of a possible 100 points and from 30.5 to 41.5 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, SCP4, and SCP7, enclosed). Due to evidence
of year-round flow, Perennial Streams A, B, E, H, J, and K were classified as perennial Relatively
Permanent Waters (RPWs) according to USACE/EPA guidance. Photographs of Perennial Streams J
and A are enclosed as Photographs A and B, respectively.
Unimportant Intermittent Streams
Unimportant Intermittent Streams B and E are located in the southern and northern portions of the
property respectively (Figure 1, enclosed). These channels typically exhibited average ordinary high
water widths of 1 to 3 feet, intermittent flow, and substrate consisting of silt to fine gravel. USACE
Stream Quality Assessment scores for these channels ranged from 26 to 45 out of a possible 100
points and from 23.5 to 25.5 out of 71 possible points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form,
indicating intermittent status (SCP3 and SCP6, enclosed). Due to evidence of flow for less than three
consecutive months a year, Unimportant Intermittent Streams B and E were classified as Non-
Relatively Permanent Waters (Non-RPWs) according to USACE/EPA guidance. Photographs of
Unimportant Intermittent Non-RPW Streams E and B are enclosed as Photographs C and D.
Wetlands
Wetlands AA and BB are located in the southeast portion of the project area and are approximately
0.16 and 0.36 acre in size, respectively (Figure 1, enclosed). These floodplain wetland areas are
hydrologically connected to Perennial Streams A and K. Dominant vegetation within these areas
includes river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), ironwood
The Oaks at Camden October 7, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 29 CWS Project No 2008-2508
(Carpinus caroliniana), and various sedges (Carex spp.). These areas exhibited low chroma soils
(2.5Y 5/2), many distinct mottles (7.5YR 4/4), inundation from 0 to 36 inches, drainage patterns,
sediment deposits, water-stained leaves, and saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile.
A Routine On-Site Determination Form representative of Wetlands AA and BB is enclosed (DPI). A
photograph of Wetland AA is enclosed as Photograph E. A Routine On-Site Determination Form
representative of on-site non jurisdictional upland areas is also enclosed (DP2).
Open Water
Pond A is located in the southeast portion of project area and is approximately 0.13 acre in size. This
open water area is hydrologically connected to Wetland BB. A photograph of Pond A is enclosed as
Photograph F.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on March 5, 2007 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. In a response letter, dated March 28, 2007 (enclosed), the SHPO
stated "based on the topographic and hydrological situation, we have determined that there is a very
high probability that archeological sites exist in the project area". The SHPO archeologist responsible
for Union County stated that this assertion was made based on landform rather than known
occurrences.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
March 5, 2007 to determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened
species or critical habitat located within the project area. In a response letter, dated March 12, 2007
(enclosed), the NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species, significant natural
communities, or significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area."
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 114 acres of property into a low density
single-family residential development comprised of 75 lots. This project will provide residential
housing to an area of Union County that is experiencing significant population growth due to
proximity of the City of Monroe and the City of Charlotte. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters are
necessary to provide roadway access to the site.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Construction of this project will completely avoid any impacts to on-site jurisdictional
wetland areas. The number of stream crossings, and the impacts associated with each crossing have
been reduced to the maximum extent practicable (over 95% of the linear footage of on-site streams
has been avoided). Impervious coverage for the proposed subdivision will be less than 24% and
includes roads (3.8 acres), and houses and driveways (23.5 acres). Proper sediment and erosion
control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All stream work will
be conducted in the dry.
4
The Oaks at Camden October 7, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 29 CWS Proiect No 2008-2508
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable permanent impacts to on-site stream channels total approximately 1136 linear feet of
perennial stream channel and approximately 70 linear feet of unimportant intermittent stream channel.
Impacts are the result of culvert and rip rap placement, and grading activities associated with two
roadway crossings and a driveway crossing. There are also 12 linear feet of unavoidable temporary
impacts associated with septic line crossings. These impacts are temporary in nature and all impacted
areas will be returned to their pre-impact condition. Unavoidable impacts to on-site jurisdictional
waters are summarized in Table 2 below.
Impacts to Perennial Stream A are the result of a road crossing (Figure 3, enclosed), a private
driveway crossing (Figure 4, enclosed), and an existing gravel driveway crossing (Figure 5, enclosed).
Impacts associated with the road crossing include the installation of 40 linear feet of culvert and 26
linear feet of rip-rap apron. An existing approximately 20 linear foot off-site driveway culvert will be
removed (Figure 3) resulting in a net loss of 46 linear feet of stream channel for the crossing. Impacts
associated with the private driveway crossing (Figure 4, enclosed) include 40 linear feet of culvert and
30 linear feet of rip-rap apron. Impacts associated with the existing gravel driveway crossing (Figure
5, enclosed) include 20 linear feet of 24"culvert.Unavoidable impacts to Perennial Stream A total 136
linear feet.
Unavoidable impacts to Unimportant Intermittent Stream B are the result of a road crossing (Figure 6,.
enclosed). Impacts include 48 linear feet of culvert and 22 linear feet of rip-rap apron. Unavoidable
permanent impacts to Unimportant Intermittent Stream B total 70 linear feet. In addition, there will be
3 linear feet of temporary impacts to Perennial Stream B. These temporary impacts are the result of a
septic line crossing (Figure 7, enclosed). A typical cross-section of the septic line crossing is enclosed
as Figure 8. These impacts are temporary in nature and all impacted areas will be returned to their
pre-impact condition.
Unavoidable temporary impacts to Perennial Stream E are the result of two septic line crossings
(Figure 7, enclosed). These septic crossing impacts total 3 linear feet each. A typical cross-section of
the septic line crossings is enclosed as Figure 8. These impacts are temporary in nature and all
impacted areas will be returned to their pre-impact condition. Unavoidable temporary impacts to
Perennial Stream E total 6 linear feet.
Unavoidable temporary impacts to Perennial Stream K are the result of a septic line crossings (Figure
7, enclosed) and total 3 linear feet. A typical cross-section of the septic line crossing is enclosed as
Figure 8. These impacts are temporary in nature and all impacted areas will be returned to their pre-
impact condition. Unavoidable temporary impacts to Perennial Stream K total 3 linear feet.
The Oaks at Camden October 7, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 29 CWS Proiect No. 2008-2508
Table 2. Summarv of Impacts to On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional Intermittent Figure Temporary Impacts
Feature / Perennial No. Activity / Length, Area
Permanent 1 (acre)
Fi
ure Culvert Permanent 401f 0.004
g
3 Rip-Rap Permanent 6 If 0
002
Apron .
Stream A Perennial Figure Culvert Permanent 401f 0.004
4 Rip-Rap Permanent 301f 0
003
Apron .
Figure Culvert Permanent 201f 0
002
5 .
Unimportant Figure Culvert Permanent 481f 0.002
Stream B Intermittent 6 Rip-Rap permanent 221f 0
001
Apron .
Perennial Figure Sept
c Temporary 31f 0.0003
i
Septic

Figure
Crossing Temporary 31f 0.0003
Stream E Perennial
7 Septic
Sept
c
i
Crossng Temporary 31f 0.0003
Stream K Perennial Figure Septic Temporary 3 If 0.0003
7 Crossing
Total Net Stream Impacts (If) 2181f 0.0192
acre
Total Permanent Stream Impacts (1f) 2061f 0.18
acre
Total Permanent Impacts to Perennial Streams (If) 1361f 0.015
acre
On behalf of Mr. Ron Rushing, CWS is submitting a Pre-Construction Notification Application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 3705
(enclosed).
Compensatory Mitigation
Construction of this project has limited the amount of perennial stream impacts do not exceed 150
linear feet and completely avoided impacts to jurisdictional wetland and open water areas. Therefore,
no mitigation is required for this project. Our client, Ron R. Rushing Construction, proposes to
preserve all remaining on-site streams with 30-foot stream buffers, protected by deed restriction. In
addition, approximately 15.3 acres of buffer preservation is being proposed for this project. This
buffer includes Wetlands AA and BB, Pond A, and the avoided portions of Perennial Streams A and E
(Figure 3, enclosed).
The Oaks at Camden October 7, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 29 CWS Proiect No. 2008-2508
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-527-1177 or through email at [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
.- C -,,&Ld
Gregg C. Antemann, PWS Thomas J. Blackwell
Principal Biologist Project Scientist
Enclosures: USGS 7.5' Watson, NC Topographic Quadrangle
NRCS Union County Soil Survey
Figure 1. Wetland Boundary Survey
Figure 2. Subdivision Overview
Figure 3. Stream A Impacts (Road Crossing)
Figure 4. Stream A Impacts (Private Driveway Crossing)
Figure 5. Stream A Impacts (Gravel Driveway Crossing)
Figure 6. Stream B Impacts
Figure 7. Temporary Impacts (Septic Crossings)
Figure 8. Temporary Impacts Detail
Figure 9. Proposed Mitigation
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 29
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCPI - SCP7)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1 - SCP7)
Significant Nexus Determination Documentation Forms (SCPI - SCP7)
Ordinary High Water (OHWM) Documentation Forms (SCPI - SCP7)
Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP I - DP2)
Representative Photographs (A - F)
Agency Correspondence
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Mr. Ron Rushing, Ron R. Rushing Construction
Mr. Jeff Gordon, Frontier Land Surveying
Z20 Wrgeds'200a-2503 The Oaks at CamdenTerm inglUSACE NWP29 report (2-2&M).doc
The Oaks at Camden
Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Watson, North Carolina, dated 1991.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
Nationwide Permit No 29 Project No. 2003-2508
The Oaks at Camden
Nationwide Permit No. 29 Project No. 2008-2508
Soil Survey Courtesy of the USDA-MRCS
NRCS Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina, Sheet Nos. 14 and 19, dated 1996.
Approximate Scale ] " = 2000'
a.LVn aavJSnu LLVa Aea?avdslad
80SZ-800Z *ON loarold SMJ
uuiioiLD gl.IoN `30now
uapulr.D it, scup aqZ
?ananS Uupunog puu[;aM •I ajn?l[ j
-ROOZ (171vO'DNIAIAaCN (INY I )IIIINOad d©09UTAOad .t7AafIS 7[IIS ?JN9 a7d7a
£LZSZ ru!IOIPD WON `3110[."PgD ?
•pA[g asnogiiu?jsaM;si OSS SMo
SaauuaS PUE113A17OUT10 UD p

,OOb=.?I:11VJS I,I,VWIXONddV
NOUDBNIa (INV NOIIVJO"I O
LOHd ~o-
.
LNIOd NOI.LVJIdISSWID INVIN1S IdJS •
.LNIOd V.I.Va Ida
VMIV 2FI.LVM NddO 1VNOILJIaS[bnf
VMIV aNV'T.I. 1M "IVNOI,LDIaSMf
]ANNVHJ "IVNOILJIaSINnr-NON
"I:INNVHJ INVIXIS'IVNOI LDIaSI2mf
1.NVQNnOU ALNNONd F

i9£
iun
59`Z
3aad
7
7JVSn HI AU C11- HIN_IA N A9 ION dAVFI S, mn.Lv3:1 '7vNol.LJIaSINnr
'LOOZ `9 I-IJNVN NO (SMJ)'DNI `S I,-)WiTS aNVIIAM VNI"IONVJ AU .LINn SdD NF IAIN-WIS
V `JNISn a9AHANnS aNV a-11V]NI"110 7NdM'S n JILL d0 SN7.I.VM -IVNOILJIaSINnf -,LEON
W W Q
W
Q w
.W.7 U Q L?cl
U ¢ A F
Q
>- uQa O '"'? z
F r?7
Q N U 3 O
Q
Q
°m o o o
u
u
w O U Q W
a f-G PQ.. ! ~0.' Q
a ti u
fW-
z
W
a
9ZLf3-! 8Z (VOZ) i.arioj) Db-2? `A1IWb J 3 I0NIS
0G68Z ?DN `3OdNOW 1'd_ld ANVNIM_13?ld
3nN3AV do)q,ivm ?3-ta d h$m
nNIAAANns aNVN311NO?4.J }s . ?NAC KV3 1d SMIVO 3N1_
Y E_
' E Y>
c0 ?L
loll
U) C)
f U)
I? E If s?i I m
ti! I 'j,
cc a
.arc, ?a?ir?R?s N N
C C s
M"60' U) o i a)
u (? ire .
3
WliMM a k a ?# c: 14?
< 1
L. y„ b Y'iHtS 'TYIWN':;fld v7
fL !;
C....
H
p 0^
1
Z L`
0 >
Cx b
a
L?_f (J J
CT.". W <
tL L)r t/S

s?
V

Yom"
'¢Y - $ ?i
?? y?pky
!? ppaa
t14$}}k y'?y

-v
?..,
I
$? fi C e

; a co
-P U4

?
T
W N ,?o C)
u
` ?
?? pg p y 4r
?
?" ?$? N .5 u? ? ..• l Key :."M'v

.=MM Jd dwd
dd
?otN i
d
dh U)
d

Q rvt

?,I-z
C
co
Cc)- E
9 N
C
`.L^
U)
kd
E
cu
W
L
U)
-Fo

OKI
U
m
M w
> N N 00
? N o

? ? -? c
O ?
0 3-. o0
•> O
L cC yT
a?
cd w
'Ly ? U ? ? ,? N
O -o ? o
SUN
?d3z? ?U?o
w a 7 It

U O O
L
7 U

V
3

r
Iz

R
I
w
a
z
a
z
0
z
z,
z
0
U
0
x
a
a
Q
o:
0
J 6
wa
o-
0
OW
FZ
wa?
cn w
?Z
N W
W o
oa
40'9z9
-s yzs-
%$ 90'£ZS
I

--
- 1 _
j
I
8COZ9
?
-
--- _ -- ? I---9'ZZS-"

'
F O 4£
B1S
ID
D J
N
a8 9CLLS
-- i - a m
I ? I
W819

I 6Z[?-
I

T/k7-- i

V6Z9 +
N
0
3
S
o t?.
O
a
W
M
a
a
a ?
? M
v ?OC
U ? N o

'?

o
::j O
?
O
p b
? ctl ??
v ro ?p
c
3 z ? ¢ u t:
Mg~ E

(? x
o -,4 z
N
w

°?
C)
0
kl) 0 U ? ? r
o
a ?
U
a
it
k
u L?. 'a
4
t4 a

0_
W
I-
J >
Od
a?
O
Z
O W
~ J
U
Nwl
cn z!
W
NOOI
U Q.
0 0
rl
N
b
3 ao
N
J
O O
O N
¢ N
? to
a
Fi? w M
z
u?
vin
m
CL
ww Xu
FL N i
cn n¢`
¢ z
Of O
o_ a
i'If
O
M
N
6
u
? c
O O
`a
o ¢
c r-
c O O
° a?
a¢ c
¢
N
?
O L o-6
L O w Y
U C U U
§?
0 -j
W VOLb

r i

--... _.-.
..
._._.. - £l'OLb
0 ._...-l`OLb

n
dr . Q
a

T-
U ¢
O i

^
00
i

CL

a?mm
i
-----
-- -`
[ - -079b
I
l£Z94
£'LSb
0 kVM 831V
N3YV3AVd ON
OS'S94

o° Z'994

W
Q
2
2
O !-
U)
z
c?
z
0
U
0
0
M
0
a
:v

00'894
}
0 9'99ti o
10
' DbGYN9Y7f
sour'•n313
OYN !0 3NMIN31

z
0
0
0
°o
o w
J
Ll
O
Of
W
W
ro
Q
a W
o ?
O
i
o I
u I
w
w ?
d
X
O
a
a
a
d
U

QJ N
U ?N o
ec
y
?

ti
o
(D <

? o
?.. U
oc,
? p O z ? ?o

4 N
,? 3z
w ? U (V
?U
u I o an

c? o ?, - ? o a o
in?
o s ?C4n
63
6
4.4 0.
- U
o
V

u
V w

w o
?,
4 4

J •? jam` ' ? I r
6i
t
-
,
?-
off
Cf)
f
t
r
I
Z ;? l11 ?lJ%1 ?
i
f
ry
/ rr ? / I I ? 1 (? .i ? - S

a
a
xN
W
b

c
0
c
(7
J~
N
Ox
cr W
d w
0
z
ow
?z
UJ
W ?
LH
I Z
N W
NU
O
UQ
Z
0
0

r
17
,F N
°o
0
Q
-77
d

3
J Q
O ?
?w
a0
Z w
O Z
VJ
W I
W I
IZ
En w
V) U
O
U Q
0
o,
?? ? V T 1 7I13N9IJf II
? ? aW
L
L CL EW
C J .
_... - _. - C N L O
cu
6- -E
- - ?_ _(D Q !
D WE
W
I N
ca)
CY)
E: (D
O L /
0 U) ch k f:
J
Z;
Irx;
a
W - W t O
U) 00
G
J CU a w
_ t a
r
cr- .2
- - ? ' r` v to ~o' °
00
U o
d. ', I w c Q
iw o`o
L rri,-? 1 a ¢ n¢°v
Q U %
VJ? ¢a ^J
iF7LC
l'itS

I WIG

Z0'809
t
1 B B09
Z£ 909
i S'i0S
a

W
?n
O
gym
I ii'90S
-
-
w
a?
am
i 9'009

i _ i
i
or'909
_
i i 0'009
l
i O N
__ I 9l'90S __ i °o
0o L'£OS ? o

C
d t'96i
VL6i
l'86i
Z'66i
s
0
£'OOS 0 +
01L8Z DN-'308N0W
3(1N3AH dmIVM 8-b6£L
SNI,l3A2j(1S aNHI ?1311NObU
(aso ud U? noS)
N
RICH,,
0
0
K b gU

n
LL n ? rn
u NFU 'T 4J yr
O ?WZ M. ? uJ Q?
tv, a J o^ ? w o,
ttq V l 1. r , 10 P?• C ry CQ
L NA 0" RE W a M
Uj'1AL
STR AM) O U
eai razor nar/ urr? Cd
i SWW31'E std' u'c`zcsaos V Yt
--W
CL C M _.._.
< $? ? ? •'? T
E 'F
V (n
v) o
co U
•- L
0 (L) F`.
N E 4
d. ;F-
e
f1 A K ? i
'un d
r m
All
M
r
,
fi r +? ??yJ E bn y Co coo
? r a
N E •? ??
o
r '
gib, ? oa ? U
i
- ?? 1b? oiy •E . /o
120.0V
,M-WIWW MIX
A4 Im
Co \,k
+hy ,? ??40 .? i ? a
t y
U },
(EO Q. C Qiy? 4WO
°? E
,
I
2
Z c`v U ?? 3 421st
C Q V ,
C
:3 IN
CL {? 8
4v
4w
4,
t
v -
3W EKJFHR
t v
1-?9
i Q
0'+I I
ole
N
` r
? AAA
t
Qtiiys
% R I r' s? Co
ids/Q?pC?c ?' E -5
\ t??to ?,/ 5? t?o•? CS O ' s ? 2 NHS
45' Public RAW C L.; U
C
C ?s E a
CL
i
'rk
rrytgr
Q +?„ tw a
$'
t>,,,.
a
cw ,Q a
Q
41/?j
'09 l8g,# .?cbre
+muo '`
070

Wi tmer?
Cl
iy
w Q
R- CK W
O Q
+ ? Z
Z
3 w
d
LL,
In r

Z
W
Y
(T
w
rr
a
c?

I
U g
.o
a
.y
y
L
V 0
u
'O
u•
? o0
Cd o
u aoi '? cv
ob o?
E SUN
... U a
??az
v?ogo
0
U o
d
F
L ?
O
w ?
a
'Yps ?bti
I
U
C!
P
MI
Q
c ?
w .y
Z
J
J in :.
g Z
cn a ?' li
N?=Z
In??
w
i w Cz-
a ? o I
co"
jI
M
OA
LLI
Y H
SEPTIC DRAIN LINE INSTALLATION (Not to Scale)
i
15' SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD ESMT
EXIST. GROUND / STREAM BED
3'± TRENCH 18"'± COVER
O O
L2 PVC LINE
(1 Per Septic Field)
NOTE: All disturbed areas to be repaired to existing condition at time of installation.
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
I
J
CWS Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
C
?
REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY FRONTIER LAND SURVEYING, DATED SEPTEMBER 2009.
Figure 8. Septic Crossing Detail
The Oaks at Camden
Monroe, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2008-2508
PREPARED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE
31.VO (17AO9IIl 91,V(I AU O7NVd:]Sd
805Z-800Z 'ON lz)afoad SMD
uuliOlua tillON `00MOIN
uapwpD jr sluo O4.L
uoijuNg!1V pasodoad •6 a mNiA
60OZ (131 VO bNIAaANOS (W VI NILI NOM All (FIMAONd AlAWIS I I IS T)NIN9d9N
£LZSZ CuljORD gll0N `al]o1zvLlD SM.?
•pA1g asnot{?ullsaM JsV? OSS?
SaaiAJaS pu73113/k1 7CUT10JUD
saaod L•L ?
uoilanaasaJd aaj.n8 posodoad
N weGAS lelu, aJad
a
r weal}S leluuaaad .<
i
?I
vv P
m?

! ? @ 9p
# gE
t,
F
eaa}S jualllwialul lueliodwiLy
s
.00th= „1 :IIVDS UVWIXONJdV
NOI.LVAb3SINd IMACIE MSOdMid i_..
VDlV 217.LVM NUO lVN0I.LDlC1Sl2fnf
V7NV QNV'1.LAM ]VNOl,l,DlGSDlnf
-lANNVHYlVNOLLDIQSlMClf (191DVdW1
TINNVID WVANIS IVNOI.LJIGSlilflf
AllVQNflOII AINAdONd C

o?
pedwl laaj aeou!l 0L
alllwialul luelaodwiun
a
ill%
?}tt?
a
t
i?
ItI
s
p
}aa? MOW] 9t7
ylweaalS leluuajad
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: October 7, 2009
COUNTY Union County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT -154 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) The Oaks at Camden
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Ron R. Rushing Construction, Mr. Ron Rushing
POC: Mr. Jeff Gordon, at [phone]
1394-B Walkup Avenue
Monroe, North Carolina 28110
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
POC: Mr. Gregg C. Antemann, at [phone]
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: residential development )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X ) USGS 7.5' Watson, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(X) NRCS Union County Soil Survey
(X) Figure 1. Wetland Boundary Survey
(X) Figure 2. Subdivision Overview
(X ) Figures 3 to 8. Proposed Impacts
(X) Figure 9. Proposed Mitigation
(X ) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 29
(X) Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1 - SCP7)
(X ) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCPI - SCP7)
(X) Significant Nexus Determination Documentation Forms (SCP 1 - SCP7)
(X ) Ordinary High Water (OHWM) Documentation Forms (SCP1- SCP7)
(X) Jurisdictional Drainage Area Map
(X ) USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP 1 - DP2)
(X) Representative Photographs (A - F)
Z_e? C . /anZ-.
Signa a of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
OR- 03O1o V a'
W A TF9 G
0
f
b -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form

A. Applicant Information F
?Af n,
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number: Water Quality Certification No.
3705
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: The Oaks at Camden ?s
2b. County: Union
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Monroe
2d. Subdivision name: N/A DENR-WATER QUAL'TY
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name on Recorded Deed: Mr. Ron Rushing
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 4717-597
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: 3615 Lake Twitty Drive
3e. City, state, zip: Monroe, NC, 28110
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
D
4CK
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
Section A. Applicant Information, continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Ron R. Rushing Construction
4b. Name: Mr. Ron Rushing
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Ron R. Rushing Construction
4d. Street address: 1394-B Walkup Avenue
4e. City, state, zip: Monroe, NC, 28110
4f. Telephone no.: 704-283-9726
4g. Fax no.: 704-283-8561
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. AgentlConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Mr. Gregg C. Antemann
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c. Street address: 550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina, 208273
5e. Telephone no.: 704-527-1177
5f. Fax no.: 704-527-1133
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 09-072-008 and 09-072-008D
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.04201'N - 80.47280'W
1 c. Property size: 114 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Stewarts Creek/Richardson Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class C
2c. River basin: Yadkin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The current land use for the project area is agricultural with large adjacent wooded areas.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.52 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
8,082 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 114 acres of property into a single-family residential development
comprised of 75 lots. This project will provide residential housing to an area of Union County that is experiencing
significant population growth due to proximity of the City of Monroe. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters are necessary
to provide roadway construction..
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This project will involve the construction of new roads and driveways for a 75 lot residential development. The new roads
and driveways will cause impacts to Perennial Stream A and Unimportant Intermittent Stream B. Approximately 46 If of
Perennial Stream A will be impacted by the construction of a new road. The impacts are a result of 40 If of culvert
installation, 26 If of rip-rap installation, and 20 If of existing culvert removal. Approximately 70 If of Perennial Stream A will
be impacted by the consruction of a private driveway. The impacts are a result of 40 If of culvert installation and 30 If of
rip-rap installation. A further 20 If of Perennial Stream A will be culverted for a gravel driveway crossing. Approximately
70 If of Unimportant Intermittent Stream B will be impacted by the construction of a new road. The impacts are a result of
48 If of culvert installation and 22 If of rip-rap installation. There will also be 12 linear feet of temporary impacts due to
septic pipe crossings. A trackhoe and other standard construction/excavation equipment will be used for this project.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ? Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Carolina Wetland Services
Name (if known): Matt Jenkins, PWS Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
April 27, 2009
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
A NWP 29 and Water Quality Certification were originally applied for on March 4, 2009. A NWP No. 29 was issued for
the project on April 27, 2009 (SAC-2009-00545). The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) conducted a
site visit on April 24, 2009 and a request for additional information letter was issued on April 28, 2009 (NCDWQ Project
Number 09-0306). It was not possible to respond to the comments within the time required, therefore the project was
withdrawn. CWS is hereby reapplying for a WQC No. 3705 for this project. The comments arising from the field visit are
addressed in this reapplication. A new fee check is attached.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ® Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
The project is had been seperated into two phases, the North Phase and the South Phase. The North Phase consists of
the 09-072-008D parcel and the South Phase consists of the 09-072-008 parcel. Both phases are being permitted
together in this submission.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or impact (if known) DWQ - non-404, other)
Temporary (T)
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W4 [_ P E] T ? Yes E] No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f.
Stream impact Type of Stream name Perennial (PER) or Average stream width (feet) Impact
number- impact intermittent (INT)? length
Permanent (P) or (linear feet)
Temporary (T)

S1 ®P ? T Rip-Rap
Installa- Perennial
® PER ? INT
4
36
tion Stream A

S2 ®P ? T Culvert
Installa- Perennial
® PER ? INT
4
100
tion Stream A
Rip-Rap Unimportant
S3 ®P ? T Installa- Intermittent ? PER ® INT 2 22
tion Stream B
Culvert Unimportant
S4 ®P ? T Installa- Intermittent ? PER ® INT 2 48
tion Stream B
Septic
S5 ? P ® T Crossing Perennial Stream ® PER ? INT 4 6
(2 E
crossing)
S6 ? P ® T Septic Perennial ® PER ? INT 4 6
Crossing Streams Band K
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
(2
crossing)
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 218
3h. Comments: Total Net Permanent Impacts to Important Intermittent/Perennial streams equals 136 If
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent (if
(P) or applicable)
Temporary (T)

02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
Page 6of13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction pro osed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.

Pond ID
Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland

numb (acres)
er purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact (square Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for impact Stream name mitigation feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
(T)
B1 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Construction of
this project will completely avoid any impacts to on-site jurisdictional wetland areas. The number of stream crossings,
and the impacts associated with each crossing have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable (over 95% of the
linear footage of on-site streams has been avoided). Impervious coverage for the proposed subdivision will be less than
24% and includes roads (3.8 acres), and houses and driveways (23.5 acres).
1 b. Specifically describe, measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. All
construction activities will be conducted in the dry.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm, cool, cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h.. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required:
6c. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6d. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? ? Yes ? No
2. Determination if the Project Requires a Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Does the project require a Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit? ? Yes ® No
2b. Is the project subject to General Certification 3704 or 3705? ® Yes ? No
3. Determination of Stormwater Review Jurisdiction
3a. Is this project subject to any of the following state-implemented stormwater ? Coastal counties
management programs (check all that apply)? ? HQW
? ORW
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the ? Session Law 2006-246
approved stormwater management plan. ? Other:
3b. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Union County
3c. Is this local government certified to implement a state stormwater program? ® Yes ? No
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the local government and one copy
of the approved stormwater management plan (or one copy of the approved
Stormwater management plan stamped as approved).
4. Information Required for DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
4a. What is the overall percent imperviousness according to the most current site plan? <24%
4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per ? Yes ® No
General Certifications 3704 and 3705?
4c. If the site is over 24% impervious and/or contains high density areas, then provide a brief narrative description of the
stormwater management plan.
4d. Has a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items been submitted ? Yes ® No
for each stormwater BMP?
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project may lead to additional development however downstream water quality will not be impacted.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Each lot will be provided with a private septic system.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on March 5, 2007 to determine the
presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. In a response letter, dated March 12, 2007, the NCNHP stated that they have "no record of rare species, significant
natural communities, or significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.".
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on March 5, 2007 to determine the presence of
any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. In a response
letter, dated March 28, 2007 (enclosed), the SHPO stated "based on the topographic and hydrological situation, we have
determined that there is a very high probability that archeological sites exist in the project area°.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: No above grade fill will be placed in the FEMA100-year floodplain.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Map No. 3710545700J and 3710546700J
Gregg Antemann, PWS gg??
C
Principal Scientist ?.
ZT-3 10/1/09
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant Date
is provided.)
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
MAR. 14, 2007jo 7:38Af?PM CENTRAL CAROLINA
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
NO. 5533, P. 2
1VU,iu?1 r- 2
I, Ron Rushing, representing Ron Rushing Construction Company, hereby certify that 1
have authorized Gregg C. Antemann of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my
behalf nd take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this
request for wetlands permitting and any and all Standard and special conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is cue and
wxurate to the best of our knoNvledge.
C
. bL" Agent' signature
.3 his/67
Date
Completions of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
31IY1a7'
Dfat -'i
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/22/2007 Project: The Oaks at Camden Latitude: N 35.04201
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP1 Longitude: W 80.47280
Total Points: Other Perennial Stream A
Stream is at least intermittent County:
#2: 19 or perennial if e 30 30.501 Union e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 8.5 )
14. Groundwaterf1c4clischarge 2.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bicloov (Subtotal = 9.00 l
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
` Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use backside of this form for additional notes.)
Crayfish, salamanders, isopods, amphipods
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1- Perennial Stream A
I•, ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Frontier Land Surveying 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/22/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Richardson Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 80 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 3001f 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Monroe, take NC-200/Morgan Mill Road east for
approximately 4 miles. Turn right onto New Salem Road. Travel approximately 1.2 miles and turn right onto Old Camden Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.04201, W80.47280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast, 50 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES G)If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (a) NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 70 % Agricultural
10 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (_
21. Bankfull Width: 34' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 0-2'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _X _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 50 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1- Perennial Stream A
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
.? 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
>+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
., 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
4
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O' no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 50
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality _ Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/22/2007 Project: The Oaks at Camden Latitude: N 35.04201
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP2 Longitude: W 80.47280
Total Points: Other Ephemeral Channel B
Stream is at least intermittent county:
it? 19 or erenniai if ? 30 Union e.g. Quad hfame:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 7.0---) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 1.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 0.0 • 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 2.0 l
14. Groundwaterflicv4discharge 0.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?0.0 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bicloov (Subtotal= 6.00
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26, Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 2U and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 - Non-Jurisdictional Ephemeral Channel B
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET `
1. Applicant's Name: Frontier Land Surveying 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/22/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Stewarts Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 15 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 if 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Monroe, take NC-200/Morgan Mill Road east for
approximately 4 miles Turn right onto New Salem Road Travel approximately 1.2 miles and turn right onto Old Camden Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.04201 W80.47280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast, 50 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q)If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (Z 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential % Commercial % Industrial 100 % Agricultural
_% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 1-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 21 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 - Non-Jurisdictional Ephemeral Channel B
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal piedmont mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
>0 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

I S Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points
Habitat com
lexit
1 p
y 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
0 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 ` 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 21
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/22/2007 Project: The Oaks at Camden Latitude: N 35.04201
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP3 Longitude: W 80.47280
Total Points: Other Unimportant Intermittent
Stream is at least intermittent 23.50 county: Union
it? 19 or perennial if?: 30 e.g. Quad Name: Stream S
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = 11.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 5.5
14. Grcundwaterflo4clischarge 1.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 1.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1,5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 6.50 )
2CV Fibrous roots in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
weak amphipods
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Frontier Land Surveying 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/22/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:35 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Stewarts Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 15 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 2001f 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Monroe, take NC-200/Morgan Mill Road east for
approximately 4 miles. Turn right onto New Salem Road. Travel approximately 1.2 miles and turn right onto Old Camden Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.04201, W80.47280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast, 50 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q)If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES Q) 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (?D NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential % Commercial % Industrial 100 % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 1-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksbeet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 26 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP3 - Unimuortant Intermittent Stream B

R ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
E
# CHARACTE
ISTICS SCOR
..
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 0
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 , Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

I S Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
d'
1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent
varied habitats = max points)
,

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading ve etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 ]
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

G
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
1.4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 26
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
,
SC P
Significant Nexus Dctcr inat bn (S1 ) Documentation -for
. (per U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDEBOOK 5-30-07)
Date 1 -11- 0-7
Site
Relevant Reach 206 4. F
T'Ae- 0&k& wA (-u,,,cAt4 Investigator(s) R(?s ' M L3
Y N Effect
? © Speculative or Insubstantial Effect on TNW
® ? Effect on Chemical Integrity
® ? Effect on Physical Integrity
X ? Effect on Biological Integrity
Flow
- - -Notes
Volume 13 kP 1-- 3 ??- W .d?. O. S F h tg11
---- .. ,- Duration.

Frequency Flaw 30176 og
Proximity to 'ITNW 30 L F- - Flows 6 Pcc'cn Wa.l R PW -- F)OWS ?0 T N W
Hydrologic, ecologic, and other functions performed by the tributary and all of its
adjacent wetlands.
14 tL+ EOZ .50M10-
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHNYW. Documentation Form
• (bier U.S. Amy Corps of Engneers Re.-Watory Guidance Letter 05-0
Date
Site
S
?
?
?
?
-2z-o-7
Observation Point 56P 3
Tkc, Ukk5 ck-- La.MdCh Investigator(s) ?-.G3 i- ML3
W A - Primary Indicators-- -
? ? Natural line impressed on bank
© ? Shelving
? ? Changes in character of soil
? ? Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? © Presence of litter and debris
® ? Wracking
® ? Vegetation matted down, bent or absent
? ? Sediment sorting
® ? Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? ? Scour
® ? Deposition
? ? Multiple observed flow events
? ? Bed and banks _
? ? Water staining
? ? Change in plant community
Notes
S = Strong W = Weak A = Absent
El
?
Secondary Data Sources
Lake and stream gage data ? Flood predictions
Elevation data ? Historic records of water flow
Spillway height ? Statistical evidence

" -- ? I - 3' .->
Sketch of dimensions and notes.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/22/2007 Project: The Oaks at Camden Latitude: N 35.04201
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP4 Longitude: W 80.47280
Total Points: Other Perennial Stream B
Stream is at least intermittent County:
it? 19 or perennial if> 30 36.50 Union e.g. Quad Dame:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 20.5 l Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 1.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 1.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 3.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8.0
14. Groundwaterflo4discharge 2.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or rowing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1,5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.00
20'. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use backside of this form for additional notes.)
3-foot headcut from unimportant portion. Moderate
amp po s and crayfish.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP4 - Perennial Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1EII
1. Applicant's Name: Frontier Land Surveying 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/22/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:45 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Stewarts Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 40 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 3001f 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Monroe, take NC-200/Morgan Mill Road east for
approximately 4 miles Turn right onto New Salem Road Travel approximately 1.2 miles and turn right onto Old Camden Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.04201 W80.47280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast, 50 decrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q)If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (?D 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? G NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential % Commercial _% Industrial 70 % Agricultural
30 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 34' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) X Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP4 - Perennial Stream B

# ECOREGION POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 l
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
p4 (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max oints

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

I S Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Habitat com
lexit
1 p
y 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, vazied habitats = max oints)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O; no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
* Tnese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

s
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/22/2007 Project: The Oaks at Camden Latitude: N 35.04201
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP5 Longitude: w 80.47280
Total Points: Other Ephemeral Channel C
Stream is at least intermittent county.
e.g. Quad Flame:
50 Union
it? 19 or perennial if? 30 23.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 1.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagetnray 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 5.5 )
14. Grcundwaterfic4discharge 1.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or grmvin season 1.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 0.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.00 )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; CBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use backside of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Lacks surface water connection. Moderate amphipods.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
t -1
SCP5 - Non-Jurisdictional Ephemeral Channel C
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Frontier Land Surveying 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/22/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Stewarts Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 12 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 3001f 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Monroe, take NC-200/Morgan Mill Road east for
approximately 4 miles. Turn right onto New Salem Road. Travel approximately 1.2 miles and turn right onto Old Camden Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.04201, W80.47280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: rain within the past 24 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast. 50 deerees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (?DIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (Z 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 30 % Agricultural
70 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 1-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 0-2'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 37 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP5 - Non-Jurisdictional Ephemeral Channel C
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
C
CHARACTERISTICS S
ORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
*4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4

0-5

1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
>- (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
h no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

j
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints
r19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

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

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 37
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/19/2007 Project: The Oaks at Camden Latitude: N 35.04201
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP6 Longitude: W 80.47280
Total Points: Other Unimportant Intermittent
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if>_ 19 or perennial if a 30 25.50 Union e.g. Quad Name: Stream E
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 1.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: rifle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 1.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6.0 )
14. Groundwaterflo4clischarge 1.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 1.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 yes= 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6.50 l
20t'. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAU = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 1u ano if rocus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Weak amphipods, caddisflies.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP6 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream E
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I - ` U-P
1. Applicant's Name: Frontier Land Surveying 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/19/07
5. Name of Stream: UT to Richardson Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 39 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f
4. Time of Evaluation: 2:00 pm
6. River Basin: Yadkin
8. Stream Order: First
10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Monroe, take NC-200/Morgan Mill Road east for
approximately 4 miles Turn right onto New Salem Road Travel approximately 1.2 miles and turn right onto Old Camden Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.04201 W80.47280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast, 45 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Z If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES Q) 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (?D NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 5 % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
95 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 1-3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 0-2'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _X _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 45 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP6 - Unimportant Intermittent Stream E
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
3
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA*' 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
H no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
>4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
00 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
r23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 45
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
"Cp 6
Significant Nexus Determin tfdh (S ND) Documentation form
. (per U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTIONAL DETE UMNATION FORM INSTRUCTIONAL G=JMtBOOK 5-30-07)
Date .I ` I q ` 07 Relevant Reach
Site -f h c y akS &v- CcLm cA e h Investigator(s)
Y N Effect --- - -- - - - - - -
? © Speculative or insubstantial Effect on TNW
® ? Effect on Chemical Integrity
® ? Effect on Physical Integrity
® ? Effect on Biological Integrity
Flow
100 LF-
RGS + ML-5
- - - - -- - --Notes
Volume 3 Pwoe. y: S 1- k`y
%
1. -- -.. .
. ?- -- C:4 h ?,. ALl V U.S MV Yt4??.S . pw) . .......
Duration.
Frequency .?] v w 3 0 07o D do-y s

Proximity to TNW a03 Z F - ;' lows ;t b P«CA Yt I I&l R PW - f 1owS } o TA/ W

Hydrologic, ecologic, and other functions performed by the tributary and all of its
adjacent wetlands.
!-? u.1?, ?-t,?-? ?v? 5 ®r? c, w? ac ?-a btn-? In cis
? sum ? 7
Ordinary iLyWater Mark (OH . Documentation Form
(per U.S. Array Corps of Engineers laeaulatory Guidance Letter 05-05)
Date 1-11-07 Observation Point S(-9 G
Site The- Oaks o-? Ca and e.vt Investigator(s) R G I + M L- J
S W A - Primary Indicators---
? ® ? Natural line impressed on bank
? 9 ? Shelving
® ? ? Changes in character of soil
® ? ? Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? M ? Presence of litter and debris
® ? ? Wracking
? M ? Vegetation matted down, bent or absent
® ? F-j Sediment sorting
? M ? Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? ® ? Scour
? ® ? Deposition
? ? ? Multiple observed flow events
? ® ? Bed and-banks.. .-.-_ -
® ? ? Water staining
-? ? . ? Change in plant community
S = Strong W = Weak A = Absent
0
- -Notes
Secondary Data Sources
Lake and stream gage data ? Flood predictions
Elevation data ? Historic records of water flow
? Spillway height ? Statistical evidence
Y N
OHWM ?
NAM
??
C WS

<- - l-3),?e ,
Sketch of dimensions and notes.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 01/19/2007 Project: The Oaks at Camden Latitude: N 35.04201
Evaluator:RGJ & MLJ Site: SCP7 Longitude: W 80.47280
Total Points: Other Perennial Streams E
Stream is at least intermittent County:
it>_ 19 or erenniai if 2t 30 41.50 Union e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 25.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 2.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
W Natural levees 2.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 3.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnlonv (Suhtotal = 8.5 1
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge 2.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bicloav (Subtotal= 8.00 l
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 t. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: CBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Moderate crayfish, amphipods, caddisflies.
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #

SCP7 - Perennial Streams E
r.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Frontier Land Surveying 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/19/07 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Richardson Creek 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 120 acres 8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 5001f 10. County: Union
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Monroe, take NC-200/Morgan Mill Road east for
approximately 4 miles. Turn right onto New Salem Road. Travel approximately 1.2 miles and turn right onto Old Camden Road.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.04201, W80.47280
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast, 45 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential
-Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
_ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
:)n point? YES (?DIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (?D NO
% Commercial _% Industrial 10 % Agricultural
90 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 3-5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 65 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP7 - Perennial Streams E
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive dischar es = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
>4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
F, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

l 5 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
Ei no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
0,, no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

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

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 65
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
p a ,f .:•1 XMap® 4.0
1569
t�t 1664
�cl538 rJ� 1503 605 • �-' �
23231608 1639 j
1536 J
1535 %r i 218 l 1609 }
1663
f.. 1599 2307 ,' 1667 ' 1547
• Goose Creek
1610 1001
3175 a- 1655 •.� %
1533 1611
2329 1526 1532--a
532--"" 167 1656
1657`
1524 --` 12317 2333. 1640 A , 1653 ;
•- ` 601 ,
1521 _
1568 1522 1531 1 1676 „• 1652
i 1527 1528 1 ` 669 ,
7 1587 1501 w ,
1558 1614
1585 - % 1611 (.- 200
1642
1008_ `' 1517 1367 30 d / � 33i 1636 , 1643
(1373 t Red 1577- - 1613 ( 1665 l 34 1670 Watson
HII
1561 ;
1635
11672
1452 ` (1-3 6 1551 1518 1550 -- 673 •
. • 1399 1379 �, 1508'+. 1505 1 7 1628 ` 1679
. 1514 Via°. 1507 1001 1620
138 _ r
• 1511 12331 1571 1626' ■
1192 f-15-10 ~" p powlerCrossroads
` 1353 � il
14 1502 1621 ,-
X377 Monroe : 185 �� tl, •'d ':
—Z - 7 1622
2337 1765 .' 1757
1348 1208 1501
• 1759
1182 1 3 1169 601 162 1783
1335 1350' 1631 1351 -
r 1165
1396 1397 `_ - _ 1162 1773 rsr
1334 �t onroe 1763 r 1002 1755
sa -
1776 - -
_.
....
mg
1963 r
VV'
ate -
1315 . 2
-- -_- f
75 U. 1. Stream B Watershed - 35 sq. mi. (appox.)
1333 1188 _ -
1332 _ 1210 �` 21s'HUC CODE- ©3040105070050,9
1961
2143
= 1976
1162 1385 - — - 1957
1434= 1158 2145 2207 2138 r ,1758
1151 _ 1220 ? 1946
2175 1955
1222 1153 1156 2102 ` 1956 1947.
■ 2147 207 2106 2107 1953 1954. ,' 1003
1145 1193 � 1152 - 2149 __ ,' fi01
2135 2134
1154 2148 11 1
1226 ` 2202._., - 2715 2108 ,� • v' • 1943
' 189 �Roughedje 2173 2150 , 1945 1944
TN - Scale 1 : 126,720
www.deloFme.com MN(6.9-M 0 2 3 . s
uV 1" = 2.00 mi Data Zoom 10-6

XMapO 4.0

1" = 2,000.0 ft Data Zoom 13-1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: The Oaks at Camden Date: 03/06/07
Applicant/Owner: Frontier Land Surveying County: Union
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetian
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPI
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Arundinaria gigantea Stratum Indicator
herb FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Platanus occidentalis tree FACW- 10
3 Carex spp, herb 11
4 Carpinus caroliniana tree FAC 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
All of the dominant
plant species are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-12 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) -X-Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: <12 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydroloey are present.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 1 of 2 2/27/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla silt loam WhA) Drainage Class poorly-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strude is Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 2.5Y 5/2 7.5YR 4/4 many/distinct clay loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? §Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 2/27/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: The Oaks at Camden Date: 03/06/07
Applicant/Owner: Frontier Land Surveying County: Union
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, WPIT and Paul Bright State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP2
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Ligustrum sinense Stratum
shrub Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Betula nigra tree FACW+ 10
3 Carex sp. herb - 11
4 Quercus rubra tree FACU 12
5 Liriodendron tulipifera tree FACU 13
6 Acer rubrum tree FAC 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
60%
Remarks:
More than 50% of the dominant
plant sp
ecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page I of 2 2127/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla silt loam WhAll Drainage Class poorly-drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Fluva uentic D strude is Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 7.5YR 4/4 N/A N/A silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Routine On-Site Data Forms Page 2 of 2 2/27/2009
1,a. STA7F 4
au,M
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 28, 2007
Paul Bright
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Request for Records Search, Lake Twitty Site, Monroe, Union County, ER 07-0528
Dear Ms. Stallings:
Thank you for your letter of March 5, 2007, concerning the above project. Based on the topographic and
hydrological situation, we have determined that there is a very high probability that archaeological sites exist in the
project area. We recommend that, if any earth moving activities are scheduled to take place, a comprehensive
archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of any
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Please note that we now request
consultation with the Office of State Archaeology to discuss appropriate field methodology prior to tl)e archaeological field investigation.
If an archaeological field investigation is conducted, two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well
as one copy of the appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are
available and well in advance of any earth moving activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed interest in contract work in North Carolina is
available at ,vww.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologists
may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preserv:I!ion Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
? &d L- N -&L
eter Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
YMA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor
March i2, 2007
Mr. Paul A. Bright
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: Lake Twitty Site - Proposed Residential Housing Development; Old Camden Road, Union
County
CWS Project No. 2007-1777
Dear Mr. Bright:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do
not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that
they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural
Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area
contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific information on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
N HP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Requast to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <www.nconemap.com/data.html>,
or email NC OneMap at <[e-mail]>.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NOnrrh?arOllria
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: v?nww.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/ ?aturallr?
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. SAW-2009-00545 County: Union USGS Quad: Watson
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Ron R. Rushing Construction
Address: 1394 -B Walkup Avenue
Monroe, NC 28110
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): The Oaks at Camden
development located on an approx 114 acre tract off of Old Camden Road, near Monroe
Description of projects area and activity: This permit authorizes impacts to 200 LF of UT's-
Richardson Creek (70 LF determined to be intermittent with "unimportant" aquatic function) in
association with infrastructure construction for a residential development. Buffers are being
proposed as mitigation (see permit application for details).
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
? Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 29
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your
submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide 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 permit. If the nationwide 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 permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide 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 Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), 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/pernuts.
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 Chapin at 828-271-7980.
Corps Regulatory Official Steve Chapin Date: APH127, 2009
Expiration Date of Verification: Amil 27, 2011
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 the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
hn://www.saw.usace.army.inil/WETLANDS/index.htm.] to complete the survey online.
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
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual and is adjacent to stream channels that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The
stream channels on the property are unnamed tributaries to Richardson Creek and Richardson Creek which flow
into the Yadkin River and ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through the Richardson Creek>Rocky
River>Yadkin River system which is a Section 10 navigable-iii-fact waterway at Blewett Falls dam.
Appeals Information: (This information does not apply to preliminary determinations as indicated by paragraph A.
above).
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that
approved jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 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 deternnimtion you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Steve Chapin, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
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 from the Issue Date below.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
con espondence. * *
Corps Regulatory Official: -Steve Chapin
Issue Date: April 27, 2009 Expiration Date: Five years from Issue Date
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished:
CWS (Gregg Antemann), 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 28, 2009
DWQ# 09-0306
Union County
Mr. Ron Rushing
Rushing Construction
1394-8 Walkup Avenue
Monroe, NC 28110
Subject: Hold, The Oaks at Camden
Dear Mr. Rushing:
On March 24, 2009 your application for a 401 Water Quality Certification was received. The application
has been reviewed and a site visit conducted. During the site visit it was observed that a section of the site
has been separated out into four 10-acre parcels with two stream crossings. This must be included in the
application. Whether the impacts are for a developed parcel or undeveloped parcel is not a factor in regards to
the requirement for a certification. The Army Corps of Engineers should also be notified of this new
road/driveway.
Also, this office has been informed by Union County staff that potential stream/wetland impacts are
proposed for perennial streams "E" and "H" and wetland "BB" as identified in the application for the purpose of
septic tanks for lots #41, #42, #12, #13, and #25. Please provide information regarding the potential stream
impacts relating to this information.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(h), please be advised that this project will be placed on hold. Failure
to submit the needed information by May 30, 2009 may result in the application being withdrawn frown
consideration. You may reapply, but a new fee and application will be required. In addition, this office is
requesting that the Army Corps of Engineers withhold processing the 404 permit until the requested
information is provided.
If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-
663-1699 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
cc: Steve Chapin, Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
Greg Antemann, CWS
Union County Stormwater
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
internet: www.ncwaterouality.org
Sincerely,
Ai 'n D Johnson
Surface Water Protection
Env. Sr. Specialist
One
NortliCw-olina
4(i,ally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NCD NR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
Mr. Ron Rushing
Rushing Construction
1394-B Walkup Ave.
Monroe, NC 28110
Subject: Hold/Withdrawal, The Oaks At Camden
Dear Mr. Rushing:
July 10, 2009
Union County
DWQ Project 409-0306
On March 24, 2009, the Division of Water Quality received your application for a 401 Water Quality
Certification. On April 28, 2009, this office issued a hold letter requesting more information regarding the
proposed project, to be submitted by May 30, 2009. As of the date of this letter no information has been
received.
Due to the failure to submit the requested information within the requested time period, the application for
a 401 Water Quality Certification is being withdrawn from consideration. Should you decide to reapply, a new
complete application and fee will be required. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Alan Johnson at
[phone] or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in Raleigh at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert B. Krebs
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection
cc: Corps of Engineers-Asheville Office
Ian McMillan - Wetlands Unit
Greg Antemann, CWS
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone]\Fax: [phone]\ Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterauality-ora
NorthCarohna
Naturally
An Eaual Oooortunity/Affirmative Action Emolover - 50% Recvcled/10% Post Consumer Paper
The Oaks at Camden October 1, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 29 Proiect No. 2008-2508
r
•
The Oaks at Camden October 1, 2009
' Nationwide Permit No. 29 Proiect No 2008-2508
The Oaks at Camden October 1, 2009
Nationwide Permit No. 29 Project No 2008-2508
r'
Photograph E. View of Wetland AA, facing south.
rnotograph P. View of jurisdictional open water area, facing south.