20041121 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20040709

O?O? W A T F9PG
r
Ul-((I i I
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
WATER QUALITY SECTION
September7, 2004
Mr. Pete Ramey, Owner
Mr. James W. Armentrout, Registered Agent
Ramey Development Corporation
5121 North Causeway Dr.
Winston Salem, NC 27106
Dear Mr. Ramey:
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
SEP 14 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Wetland Impacts
Autumn Woods Subdivision, Phase 3
Gaston County, NC
On September 2, 2004, Mr. Alan Johnson and Ms. Polly Lespinasse of this office met with your
representative, Mr. Russ Williard, to conduct an inspection at the subject site in Gaston County. The
inspection was a follow-up to the site investigation conducted by Mr. Johnson on May 4th.
During the inspection staff observed that a berm had been constructed across a wetland area near lot
#298 (Section DWG #5 shown on the construction plans) and sediment accumulations extended approximately
2800 ft. down gradient of lot #298. Before any new wetland impacts occur at the site, the Division of Water
Quality must be notified. Also, as discussed at the site with Mr. Williard, the following information is requested:
1. A wetland delineation for the area impacted by the sediment deposition.
2. A delineation of the area impacted by the sediment accumulation.
3. An overlay of the wetland(s) and sediment deposition.
4. A copy of the Nation Wide permit (#32) issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).
5. Information regarding plans for the restoration/mitigation for the wetland impacts.
6. Copies of any correspondence you have with the Environmental Protection Agency or the ACOE
regarding this project.
It is requested that items 1,2, and 3 be submitted to this office no later than October 11 th and that
item 4 be submitted by September 15, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Alan Johnson
or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: Cyndi Karoly - Wetlands Unit
Steve Chapin - USACOE
Russ Williard
Central Files
one
N
?QCaroj?lfina
tlllYlt
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 919 N Main St Mooresville; NC 28115 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet- h2n.enr.ntnte.nr..us FAX [phone](WO 1-977-623-6749
ALT, M_ WA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
September 7, 2004
DWQ# 041121
Gaston County
Mr. Pete Ramey, Owner
Ramey Development Corporation WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
5121 North Causeway Dr.
Winston Salem, NC 27106 SEP 14 2004
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions,
Autumn Woods Development WATER QUALITY SECTION
Dear Mr Ramey:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact
0.3905 acre of wetland for the construction of a sewer line servicing the Autumn Woods Development in
Gaston County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on July 9,
2004. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality
General Certification Number 3374, which can be viewed on our web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The General Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 12 once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get
any other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but
not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you
described in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be
required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be
given a copy of the Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached Certification, as well as
the additional conditions listed below:
1. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands
and waters or areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds on the property. These mechanisms shall be
put in place within 30 days of the date of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later).
A sample deed notification format can be downloaded from the 401NVetlands Unit web site at
http://h2o.enr. state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
2. Permanently maintained access corridors (for the sewer line) shall not exceed 15 feet in width except at
manholes.
919 North Main Street, Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 '.„
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] / Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us teMIq
Ca'Ol
m
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer - 5096 Recycied110% Post Consumer Paper !!r?
3. Stormwater discharge points shall be constructed in a manner such that the potential receiving
streamstwetlands (of the discharge) at the site will not be impacted due to sediment accumulations,
scouring or erosion.
4. Erosion and sediment control practices must utilize Best Management Practices (BMP) and be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, and operation and
maintenance of such BMPs in order to protect surface water standards.
5. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum exter
practicable.
6. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401 /Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality. Please send photograpi
upstream and downstream of each culvert site to document correct installation along with the Certificate
Completion form.
7. Continuing Compliance. The Pete Ramey Development Corporation (PRDC) shall conduct his activities
a manner consistent with state water quality standards (including any requirements for compliance with
section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law.
DWQ determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a
designated or achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are
necessary to assure compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to include condition:
appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC
2H.0507(d). Before codifying the certification, DWQ shall notify the PRDC and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0503, and provide opportunity for
public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided
the PRDC in writing and to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issue4
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for
the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are fina
and binding unless you ask for a hearing-
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-
663-1699 or Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P. E.
AJ/aj
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands Unit
Land Quality, MRO
Central Files
si
7
n
(D
O
C
(D
N
N

X13
Z

C7 n

< O

m D)
O 3

(D
C) C) 0
v
? J J
J ..A J
-l N (Y)
W

O
<
-
1
CD D C7
C) C o
N V

CD
cn
O
c
c 0
r*
r*- O
N Q
<
O
O
O

0

O O O O

(D
n n n
o

0 0 0

n
0
N -4 N ?
° 0 O
C) m (
D
? 4h, Z
(D
CL
v
(0 0O

o ° 0 m

Q
Q
`<
V
0.
0
Cl)
w
0
--h
D
(C)
U)
r+
co
NO
O
eI,A ;jay "??
Office Use Only:
N0411 21
Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management: Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
1. Owner/Applicant Information JUL 0 9 2004
Name: Ramey, Inc.; Russ Willard
Mailing Address: 5121 North Causeway Drive; PO Box 10: 7010
fON
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: rwillard8gtriad.rr.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Jay Keller _
Company Affiliation: Skelly and Loy
Mailing Address: 6404 Falls of Neuse Rd. Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: jkellergskellyloy.com
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Autumn Woods Residential Home Development
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 3597880995
4. Location
County: Gaston Nearest Town: Mount Holly
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Autumn Woods
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Approximately 1.5 miles North
of NC-27 Mountain Island Highway in Mount Holly, NC.
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres)
80.46 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Dutchman's Creek.
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Non-Forested upland tract and a Forested Riparian Area
adjacent Dutchman's Creek on the North-East side. Ephemeral stream flowing from the
center of the property to the North property corner floodplain. Residential area.
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Two 8"
sewer lines were installed with 30-foot easements. The sewer lines were installed in
accordance to USACOE Nationwide Permit 12. Trenches were excavated using a trackhoe.
The easement was graded to the pre-existing elevation and seeded for grass. The channel
excavated for the pipe was approximately 3-foot wide. A 30-foot temporary easement was
maintained during, construction and the wetland area was graded to its former elevation upon
completion
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The construction of the sewer line was
necessary in sustaining the development of the proposed subdivision and ultimately
providing service to the communities in the surrounding watershed. Additionally, there is an
existing sewer line adjacent to Dutchman's Creek. Best management practices were used to
properly place the two sewer lines through the riparian wetland area to the sewer line
adjacent to Dutchman's Creek.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 7 of 12
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Two sewer lines were installed as
illustrated on the attached site map through wetlands for connection to a pre-existing sewer
line adiacent Dutchman's Creek Impacts to the wetland included excavation.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
I00-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet
Type of Wetland***
I excavation 0.2119 Yes 250 Piedmont Alluvial
2 excavation 0.0370 Yes 800 Piedmont Alluvial
3 excavation 0.1416 Yes 230 Piedmont Alluvial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 20 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.3905 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name* * Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
( leases ecify)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: cwveris and assuciaicu ..p-,ap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usas.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mgpgtiest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 12
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
(if Name applicable) Wat) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The proposed path of the sewer
line was selected to avoid as many wetlands as possible while still maintaining the lowest
elevation possible. Two sewer lines were installed as illustrated on the attached site map through
the wetlands for connection to a pre-existing sewer line adjacent Dutchman's Creek. The
Centerline of the Creek is the property line. The sewer lines temporarily impacted the wetlands
and satisfied the Town of Mount Holly's criteria fora gravity driven sanitary sewer line.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
n/a
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/M/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page I I of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
To Town of Mount Holly.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ® No ?
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ® No ?
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
-7 / /c>
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
06!29/2004 15:02 RAMEY INC -> 19198783550
jun L19 04 02;01p
9
Jlune 29, 2004
1T0; Skelly and Loy, LLP
6404 Falls of Nouse Rd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
FROM: Pete Ramey
5121 North Causeway Drive
Bethania, NC 27010
vcrc-
F. a
I„ Pate Ramey as a representative concerning the property on
Ashton Bluff Cirde in Mount Holly, NC do hereby authorize and give permission for
Skelly and Loy to represent or act as agent on our behalf and allow the COE or any other
regulatory agency to go on the property with an Skelly and Loy representative for such
pourposes as necessary to perform the job tasks.

Wr. Pete Ramey
15121 North Causeway Drive
Blethania, NC 27010
Date
x anoo! maps ano iinving Lirecuons
Yahool My Yehool Md

O
,? ? e Loca I Welcome, jayandsanh
[Sig,riOut, My_ Account]
Maps
Yahoo! Maps
Backto Ma_p.
* Autumn Woods Blvd Mount Holly, NC 28120-2442
,
Q
.w o f ? I

,Z"lix Dutchman Dg

4..y
1
I '-
I
4a

02004 UMI M 0
Search
the web
ee
When using any driving directions or map, it's a good idea to do a reality check and make sure the road still
exists, watch out for construction, and follow all traffic safety precautions. This is only to be used as an aid in
planning.
F a25c i vi i
Maps- Home.
-....
Copyright 0 2004 Yahool Inc All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy. - Terms of Service - Copyright_Policy - Yahoo!.Maps Terms of. Use - Help. - Ad_Fee-dback
http://maps.yahoo.com/pmaps?name=&ed=nafWFup_OTp44OmC InwRYSvtCt_D.Rftm603Ln_b... On'
Ito
11

Gaston Co4nty, North Carolina GIS
Page 1 of 1
Hel
http:/

county tax dept. I tax rates I fee schedule I Scale Help
c_gis,co,gaston.nc.us/website/ParcelDataSite/viewer.htm
on (L#
5' II
[iO
?-?j A closod group, click to open
f -A An open group, click to clos!
LI A map layer.
tFrJ? A hidden group/layer, click to m ,bible,
Ini A visible group/layer, click t, nid
la A visible layer, but not at thr• sc
® A partially visible group, cl ( k to ii.,, visible.
An inactive layer, click to make ive
Current Scale 1: 5631 or 1 inch 469 het Sele
ns)
k
•val)
i
I
Y
I
l
Scale -
4/21/2004
Ln•
0
OQ
y
CD
F't
A
CCD
C
N
N
O
A
0
0
a
m
r
N
0
C
x
x
a
N
d
x
N
C)
Sr
m
m
to
0
d
m
2
m
V
0
m
U)
ID
rn
w
7
a
a
rt
II > D D D D D j D
? a? v v a a m m
CO w m ro E a
0 0 0
0l Ilf' ? C ? C C
6 V p V .O
`c
^?_ ?. o ? ro rKO x x
rt - '- n O
'n
obi `? ? v '*
p E O CD
T F N
W ° y n• ry ?
(p N <.
Cl) CD
N
n
d_
CD
4
C
Q
; s
0
3
T
h
n
G
r
f
...... ......................................... ._....................... ..
Li .:....... ......?.........._.;...........? L .......... frJ' Lj
LICJ©CDCJG?©LI LIDDDDDI ?I Cl D
° rcn mz ?, vcnvpv
p N °0 - C d n ?+ O Gri
(D n 3 Q c '<' or
m
r C cn rD ^ D u_i z z r W
y+ O W rD N O X r V1 O G pl _r O
ID -n 73 B 0
" vi Ln -p In In O
= r m -t O O 7
O O GL O r
0 Ln O
fD
rD
3 r
N n, O
U

,? to rn
? K /?
V J
_ a
rt
t

0
n 0?

Q
? N „
a ` I
3 ? 0 O
` 0 V
O
3 ° rrF
?,.
O IA
rt M
0

o a O V

r 00
&

g 0 W,
3
.? d O
m
rv

.^^n,,
fu

'}h
Ul
wane
C/,

A
r
A
ti
O
vi
f? n
k'
a
G
z
n
0
90
1
cn
t9
O fD
O V
C7 ?
V
?u
? O
® U?Q
CD

NEfLANDS AREA CC APUTATNk18
181........ 9,E31 80.FT......... GM 19 ACRES
IS 2....... 1,808 NUT ....... . .... 0.0370 ACRES
18 &._.... 8,188 SQFT........ _..0.1416 ACRES
1S CHANNEL _.....11.M SMFT.........._ 0.4710 ACRES
...........48,510 SM Frr ........ ILM 4 ACRES
r?
IM MO 0 ID M
q'^ ME=
FLOCum OD CINITIFOCATMM
LODam N A SPMK FLOOD WZw MIFit 1$ ,AM1 Dtt
YM8 PIIlU? df 11E FIO><lllt 9MIMMOY YYN6ElENf
M_Ay?Y 1 S?1NlRIII¢1171, OV®
F? 3707100301E
FILE COPY
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
'041??1?
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1.
II.
Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 12
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Ramey, Inc.; Russ N
Mailing Address: 5121 Nor
Telephone Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: rwillard8(a)triad.rr.com
:PO
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
JUL 0 9 2004
Fax Number: [phone]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Jav Keller
Company Affiliation: Skelly and Loy
Mailing Address: 6404 Falls of Neuse Rd. Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: ikellergskellloy.com
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Autumn Woods Residential Home Development
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 3597880995
4. Location
County: Gaston Nearest Town: Mount Holly
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Autumn Woods
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Approximately 1.5 miles North
of NC-27 Mountain Island Highway in Mount Holly, NC.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 80.46 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Dutchman's Creek.
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Non-Forested upland tract and a Forested Riparian Area
adjacent Dutchman's Creek on the North-East side. Ephemeral stream flowing from the
center of the property to the North property corner floodplain. Residential area.
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Two 8"
sewer lines were installed with 30-foot easements. The sewer lines were installed in
accordance to USACOE Nationwide Permit 12. Trenches were excavated using a trackhoe.
The easement was graded to the pre-existing elevation and seeded for grass. The charnel
excavated for the pipe was approximately 3-foot wide. A 30-foot temporary easement was
maintained during construction and the wetland area was graded to its former elevation upon
completion.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The construction of the sewer line was
necessary in sustaining the development of the proposed subdivision and ultimately
providing service to the communities in the surrounding watershed. Additionally, there is an
existing sewer line adjacent to Dutchman's Creek. Best management practices were used to
properly place the two sewer lines through the riparian wetland area to the sewer_ line
adjacent to Dutchman's Creek.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 7 of 12
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Two sewer lines were installed as
illustrated on the attached site map through wetlands for connection to a pre-existing swer
line adjacent Dutchman's Creek. Impacts to the wetland included excavation.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet
Type of Wetland***
1 excavation 0.2119 Yes 250 Piedmont Alluvial
2 excavation 0.0370 Yes 800 Piedmont Alluvial
3 excavation 0.1416 Yes 230 Piedmont Alluvial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 20 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.3905 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please seci

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.yov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mai)quest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 12
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name Waterbody
)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The proposed path of the sewer
line was selected to avoid as manv wetlands as possible while still maintaining the lowest
elevation possible. Two sewer lines were installed as illustrated on the attached site map through
the wetlands for connection to a pre-existing sewer line adjacent Dutchman's Creek. The
Centerline of the Creek is the property line. The sewer lines temporarily impacted the wetlands
and satisfied the Town of Mount Holly's criteria fora gravity driven sanitary sewer line.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http : //h2 o. enr. state. nc. us/ncwetl and s/strm p,i de. htm 1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 1 1 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
n/a
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
To Town of Mount Hollv.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ® No ?
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ® No ?
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

i Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
06/29/20)04 15:02 RAMEY INC 4 19198783550
.run Lis U4 02;01p
0
Jlune 29, 2004
'ir0: Skelly and Loy, LLP
6404 Falls of Neuse Rd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
FROM: Pete Ramey
5121 North Causeway Drive
Bethania, NC 27010

F.2
I,: Pete Ramey, , as a representative concerning the property on
6shton Bluff Circlg it Mount Holly- NC_ , do hereby authorize and give permission for
Skelly and Loy to represent or act as agent on our behalf and allow the COE or any other
regulatory agency to go on the property with an Skelly and Loy representative for such
pourposes as necessary to perform the job tasks.
Z'? ?- '.? "Z=:=7
tlrrlr. Pete Ramey
15121 North Causeway Drive
Beethania, NC 27010
Date
x anon! Maps ano Lnving ijirecuons
Yahoo! My Yahoo! MAR
Acco.u tl
G 0& etLo+cai Welcome, joyandearah
?a [.Sign. Out, M My Account]
Maps
Yahoo! Maps
CC Ba.ck-to_Ma.p
* Autumn Woods Blvd Mount Holly, NC 28120-2442
4. r
I
1
02004 Yahoo! Inc O
4.
When using any driving directions or map, it's a good idea to do a reality check and make sure the road still
exists, watch out for construction, and follow all traffic safety precautions. This is only to be used as an aid in
planning.
Copyright ® 2004 Yahool Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms_of Service - Copyright_,Po!icy - Yahoo! _Maps_Terms of Use - delp - Ad_Feedback
Search
the web
?? ?rdA'nd Pa?,411?
gran Lir 6akirreit,D+
unt

a KgV L VL 1
AO
Maps_Home_
http://maps.yahoo.com/pmaps?name=&ed=nafWFup_OTp44OmC1mwRYSvtCt D.Rflm603Ln b... 0201101&
Gaston County, North Carolina GIS
Tool:
Gaston County North Carolina G/S Active
School Di s
Q Full Extent O Clear A Previous View 0 Overview Map dAMeasure
Lu er9
?PrintMap
IdentifyParcel AZoomIn (5ZoomOut n Pain /Pan 14?SelectParcel S=earch
U J Soils
?J NC Index
-LIF--J rj Easements
El 0 Watersheds
r
1 Structure I ( )Ot Its
'CFA 0 Lakes, Sttrr,m 7 I (:(.Ie
L L_j .? Topo (COI rluu roes 5'
Municipality Layci,;
150 Orthophotos (Aer ial ul cis)
r:
N t ,.
Refresh ap
?? -
Idn ?,
VI Ii /Illil) tri t°,h
?r f
u ...__..-w cOU ty. Nc ? ?- ?? 1?.? s.. r. I I I
i.J t. r. iosed group, click to opril f
,.,;7I An open group, dick to cloy.
r? A map layer.
1r? A hidden group/layer, click i,:. r e. ble.
Ia7 A vislple group/layer, click t,, hi
s=
I? A visible layer, but not at t r-. s
® A partialN visible group, (k to
An inactive layer, click to make
,K
contact s county tax dept I tax rates fee schedule I Scale Help Self
Current Scale 1: 5631 or 1 inch 469 feet'
http://pu lic_gis.co.gaston.nc.us/website/ParceiDataSite/viewer.htm
Page I of 1
=H,-
T ons)
val)
a Scale
4/21/2004
O
bA
as
rVl
V
O
U
z
O
U
O
y
c
o ?
N
Ai
O4
0
F- -0
0 0
V 6)
Q CO'
141
III
6i
3
b
v
L
d

?V
0
J C:
H
Ul
O N v,
a ? a c o
C C:
3 O LU J CL
u N C N i O E N
C c O c c -Ou. T c a w
Vl J Z z N Q U to B N N U0 VI
o
C7 ? a? w v a? o aEi q; a)
rp O i i ..fl i `n C U t0 2 ro O L
a {r0--t? m V) ?a, - L9 zwin L1- A 0.
a1 u ti:l Ll t.? L; O "0000000 C
a 12 al's 000 L L1=L117L1 11 0
1 fry f I i..........._'............ .°j ...... €....._s ................._€.. ._.
I
ti
3 t?
? A
V V
CL °
a3

V V

1 N j
A I/
?

a
a f
ONO
U) Unam
? o

H C
a N

U
°
° a

V

? 0
U C
c°
V
r?^
V
W
a
LL

C ?

d
i0
U
CD
co

a?
cn
CL
l0 > >
41 N ai
ry E d U
s cu E .
r 2 Y
x w

?
o
U °
Y
U °

U ! u

V E

O
0
U +
i

Y
Y
v
v C ?
,u u }. }, ...r pi `? N
a Ci n: a i? i-
O O O } >
rn rn T 0, N i >
v c w v m '

Q a 'a li L m

u . M
E
c
>>
a

a c
a
¢
¢
a¢
a c
a
n
.c
U
0
c7
C
L
_v
10
U
V1
C
7
U
a
a
x
v
m
_d
v
a
t
U
N
N
R
d
Cl
r
c
3
v
N
v
?a
c
0
U
0
0
N
N
cP

0
ca
CIP
0
U
vi
.rt
..r
Q.
*AZ
999
J r
Wq?wn
0: _j 00
Nil
g y
iin
F, u
o ga ?
yp?? g
SO ? $of
S -$Sn ?m 0,
e ?aus.._ ? ? 8 p
y ? l 3
A
M r
e
A
Q
r
1k
WFLM
qVt?(t:<
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional CoordinatoXOX
Habitat Conservation Program DATE: August 2, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of an application by Ramey, Inc., Autumn Woods Residential Home
Development, DWQ No. 041121 (After-the-Fact), Dutchman's Creek, Gaston County
The applicant is requesting 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on
our staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Two sewer lines have been installed through riparian wetlands adjacent to Dutchman's Creek.
Total impacts to wetlands are indicated to be 0.3905 acres. Total existing wetlands on the site are indicated
to be twenty (20) acres. Total impervious area for the development is not indicated.
Based on our review of the submittal, we recommend that all remaining jurisdictional waters and
wetlands be permanently protected or restored as undisturbed forested common areas in order to provide
stormwater and habitat benefits lost due to increased development and imperviousness. If these areas are
large enough, they may provide additional stormwater assimilation which may avoid the need for
constructed stormwater management facilities. If not installed, anti-seep collars should be properly
installed where sewers cross wetlands to prevent secondary impacts to area wetlands. Only native plant
species should be used for revegetation or reforestation activities. If stormwater management is required,
Low Impact Development (LID) techniques are encouraged. Information on LID practices and measures
can be found at «-«-w.loA%impactdevelopment.org.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: Amanda Jones, COE
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-172 1
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
4

Piedmont Stormwater Pond and Mine Planting Recommendations
Instead of using the typical fescue grasses or exotic plant species, the following mixtures should
be considered for lower elevation stormwater ponds and mine sites:
Spring/Summer Mixture, May 1 - Sept. 15 Fall/Winter Mixture, Sept. 15 - April 30
Browntop millet 20 lbs/a Winter Wheat 120 Ibs/a
Kobe lespedeza 20 lbs/a Kobe lespedeza 20 Ibs/a
Shrub lespedeza 1 lb/a Shrub lespedeza 1 lb/a
Switchgrass* 5lb/a Switchgrass* 5lb/ac
Add to fall or spring plantings: `Tioga' Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum) at a rate of 7 lbs.
Pure Live Seeds (PLS) per acre.
* When possible on slopes less than 3:1 use Switchgrass instead of lespedezas and on slopes greater than
3:1 use Orchard Grass or Creeping Red Fescue. Other native species may be appropriate depending on
soil, slope, and region. Korean lespedeza may be appropriate in colder geophysical areas. We do not
recommend Sericea lespedeza. Native plants and warm season grasses are preferred over exotic plants.
Add one of the following to the above mixture:
Creeping Red Fescue 5 lbs/acre
Ladino Clover** 5 lbs/acre
Atlantic Coastal Panic Grass 5 lbs/acre (PLS)
Alfalfa** 5 lbs/acre (requires fertilizer containing Boron)
** Lime & fertilize disturbed areas according to NRCS soil test results and follow planting guidelines as
appropriate and necessary. Depending on elevation and region, other native species may be appropriate.
Note that mowing should be limited to late winter or early spring. Mowing should only occur as needed to
prevent unwanted tree growth on a 2-3 year schedule.
The provision of shade around impounded waters can significantly reduce thermal impacts. Trees
and shrubs (1 year bare root seedlings) should be planted randomly at a minimal rate of 100 trees
per acre on the top and upper portions of the structure and at a minimal rate of 150 per acre
around the normal water elevation and littoral shelf area. The following list of tree species may
assist in providing habitat benefits:
Loblolly Pine* Red Cedar Black Gum American Holly Dogwood
Hickory Sumac White Oak Willow Oak Red Maple**
Viburnum Green Ash Ironwood Black Cherry Persimmon
Water Oak Spice Bush Willow (sp) Serviceberry Red Oak
Swamp Chestnut Silky Dogwood
Other species may be utilized depending on site requirements and native plant availability. Pines* should
not exceed 15% of the reforestation. No more than 20% of the tree species will be of a single species. An
80% success rate is acceptable over five years. Large or fast growing trees like Sycamore and Maple**
may not be appropriate near detention facility dams. Note: Non-native plants included in this list are
routinely considered beneficial and/or agriculturally established non-natives. They have been included as
they are readily available commercially and they do not exhibit many of the negative attributes of other
non-natives that tend to spread or inhibit native plant propagation and survival.

i

AUTUMN WOODS
WETLANDS ASSESSMENT
PREPARED FOR
RAMEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PREPARED BY
SKELLY AND LOY, LLP
NOVEMBER 2004
1
1
1
' AUTUMN WOODS
WETLANDS ASSESSMENT

t

1
1
1
PREPARED FOR
M [APT. CF ENVrRONUM
AM NATURAL. RED
Eg9nV)NAL OFFPM
NOV 2 3 2004
1h 1
WATER OMM SECTION
219@29YR D
D
DEC 0 7 2004
DENR -WATER QUALITY
WET1ANpS AND STORMYyA7ER BRANCH
RAMEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
5121 NORTH CAUSEWAY DRIVE
BETHANIA, NORTH CAROLINA 27010
PREPARED BY
SKELLY AND LOY, LLP
SUITE 103, 6404 FALLS OF THE NEUSE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
NOVEMBER 19, 2004
2604014
i
i
i
1
i
1
1
1
A
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. 1
BACKGROUND ....................................................... 3
STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................ 5
1. SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MAPPING ........................... 6
2. WETLAND DELINEATION AND MAPPING ....................... 6
3. SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION ............................. 6
4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO
THE BOTTOMLAND WETLANDS .............................. 7
5. REMEDIAL AND MITIGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 8
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................... 9
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - RESUMES, FIELD TEAM
APPENDIX B - GPS QUALITY CONTROL DOCUMENTATION AND USACE GPS POLICY
APPENDIX C - WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS
APPENDIX D - SOIL LOGS
APPENDIX E - PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG OF SELECT SOIL SAMPLES
ATTACHMENTS
MAP 1 - WETLAND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY MAP

1

t
t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

J

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Skelly and Loy, LLP, of Raleigh, North Carolina, has been retained by Ramey Development
Corporation of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to evaluate certain and specific wetland issues
associated with Phase III of the Autumn Woods residential subdivision located in Mt. Holly, Gaston
County, North Carolina. Phase III of the Autumn Woods residential subdivision is the subject of
enforcement actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), as
well as one by the Division of Land Quality (DLQ). This Wetland Assessment included the following
specific requested activities.
1. Delineate and map the extent of sediment deposition beyond the construc-
tion limits of Phase III.
2. Delineate and map wetland community boundaries beyond the construction
limits of Phase III.
3. Characterize the nature and origin of the sediments beyond the construction
limits of Phase III.
4. Evaluate the present and potential effects of the sediment deposition on the
wetlands.
5. Develop recommendations for remediation or compensation of the sediment
impacts.
The conclusions of the Autumn Woods Wetlands Assessment are summarized as follows.
No sediment from the construction site has been discharged into Dutch-
man's Creek.

1

2. Not all the sediment in the bottomland wetlands was the result of sediment
loss from Phase III of the Autumn Woods construction activities.
3. Sediment from a variety of sources and events has been deposited into
approximately 19.3 acres of the bottomland complex along Dutchman's
Creek, including 16.7 acres of palustrine wetlands.
4. The sediment deposition in the bottomland wetlands has not adversely
affected the function and value of the wetlands. The sediment deposition
- 1 -

1
1

LI

1

5
6.
has resulted in a more upland-oriented facultative herbaceous plant
community.
No remedial or mitigative action appears to be warranted at this time.
Vegetative and wildlife monitoring may be appropriate at a later time.
-2-
t

n

BACKGROUND
t

BACKGROUND
Skelly and Loy, LLP has been retained by Ramey Development Corporation (Ramey) to
evaluate certain and specific wetland issues associated with Phase III of the Autumn Woods
residential subdivision located in Mt. Holly, Gaston County, North Carolina. Phase III of the Autumn
Woods residential subdivision (hereafter "Autumn Woods" or "Phase III") is the subject of
enforcement actions under provisions of the Clean Water Act which are being pursued by the U.S.
EPA, DWQ, and the Division of Land Quality (DLQ). Two of the enforcement actions allege that
Ramey Development Corporation (Ramey) violated the terms of its General Stormwater Permit
(NCG010000), which violations may have resulted in discharge of untreated stormwater runoff into
Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The DLQ enforcement action alleges that Ramey violated
the terms of its Erosion and Sediment Control Permit.
Ramey began Phase III of the Autumn Woods project in July of 2002. Clearing was
completed, erosion and sedimentation control structures were installed during the late Summer and
Fall of 2002 and thereafter upon the installation of additional erosion control structures, grading
began in early January 2003. No evidence of any inspections was presented to Ramey prior to
March 2004. The NC DENR Land Quality Division issued a Notice of Violation on April 21, 2004,
the NC DENR Water Quality Division issued a Notice of Violation on May 13, 2004, and the U.S.
EPA issued an Administrative Order on July 29, 2004. In a September 7, 2004, letter to Ramey,
DWQ requested (among other items) certain specific wetland information, which included the
following.
1. A wetland delineation of the areas impacted by sediment deposition from
Phase III construction activities.
2. A delineation of the area(s) other than wetlands impacted by sediment
deposition from Phase III construction activities.
3. An overlay of the wetland(s) areas and other areas impacted by the
sediment deposition.
Skelly and Loy was retained by Ramey to provide the above-outlined information as
requested by DWQ. In addition to the evaluation requested by DWQ, Ramey also directed Skelly
and Loy to
-3-

1. evaluate impacts, if any, to the wetlands resulting from the deposition of
sediment and
2. develop remedial or mitigative recommendations to offset impact to the
wetlands (if appropriate).

t

t

F1

1

-4-

I
STUDY METHODOLOGY

I

I
I

STUDY METHODOLOGY
The Wetlands Assessment conducted per the DWQ request concentrated on the portions
of the site located downslope of the areas presently being developed as part of Phase III of the
Autumn Woods subdivision and along the upland-wetland complex which exists in the greater
floodplain of Dutchman's Creek (bottomland). These areas bound Phase III, in a general sense,
to the north. The following specific work activities were included in the wetland assessment.
1. Delineated and mapped the extent of sediment which has been deposited
in the bottomland.
2. Delineated boundaries and mapped wetland communities which are present
in the bottomland.
3. Characterized the sediment which has been deposited in the bottomland.
4. Evaluated the potential effect of the sediment deposition on the wetland
communities.
5. Developed recommendations for potential strategies to remediate or
compensate the effects of sediment deposition.
The wetland assessment field investigation was conducted on September 13 and 14 and
October 18 and 19, 2004. The field team was composed of the following personnel from Skelly and
Loy (resumes are included in the appendix A).
• Thomas Johnston, Project Manager and Field Team Leader
• Ben Berra, Wetland Delineation and Sediment Distribution Mapping
• Richard Johnston, GPS Survey and Soil Analysis
' • Amy Mohr, Wetland Delineation and Data Collection
• Jennifer Sjaardema, GPS Survey and Map Preparation

Mapping of the site was furnished by Latham-Walters Engineering, Inc. of Cornelius, North
Carolina. Map 1 (Autumn Woods Wetlands Assessment Summary Map) depicts topography of the
site based on Spring 2004 aerial photography. The sediment deposition areas and the wetland
boundaries, as determined by Skelly and Loy, were field surveyed with a Trimble Pathfinder Pro XR
Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. The survey accuracy of this GPS unit under this
application is sub-meter. GPS survey of wetland boundaries is accepted by the Wilmington District
-5-

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A copy of the GPS Quality Control documentation
is included in Appendix B, as is a copy of the Wilmington Corps District policy on GPS surveys.
1. SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MAPPING
The limits of the sediment deposition were identified by visual inspection of the ground
surface and/or by auguring (or digging) shallow soil test pits to check for sediment horizons not
evident on the surface. Sediment deposition mapping was done concurrently with the wetland
delineation field study. For the most part, the sediment boundary closely approximated the wetland
boundary due to the topographic definition of the wetlands. The boundaries of the sediment
deposition area were not field flagged, but were approximated from the wetland survey.
1 2. WETLAND DELINEATION AND MAPPING
' Wetland boundaries were delineated using the USACE's 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.
In areas where recent sediment deposition had accumulated, the soils below the sediment layer
were used to evaluate the presence of hydric soils. In places were the accumulated sediments had
affected the herbaceous layer, only the tree, shrub, and vine layers were used in the determination
' of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology was evaluated at the original ground surface elevation. The
wetland boundary was delineated using a commonly applied variation of the routine for large area
' technique contained in the Corps' manual. For the most part, the wetlands located in the
bottomland possess a homogeneous plant community. As such, a representative data point was
established for each wetland area. Individual flag points along the wetland perimeter were
established by evaluating `micro-transects' along the presumed wetland fringe. Given the general
' facultative nature of the entire plant community within the bottomland, the wetland boundary was
delineated as the limit of the buried hydric soil. Soil data along these micro-transects were
evaluated by the delineator but were not recorded. Wetland boundaries were field flagged and
surveyed with GPS and included on the Wetland Assessment Summary Map (Map 1).
3. SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION
1 During the wetland delineation study (conducted on September 13 and 14, 2004), it was
noted by the delineation team that the entire sediment column above the "buried wetland" appear
-6-

' not to be all from the time period associated with Phase III construction activities. Multiple samples
contained substantial live root material in the sediment column. The lower portions of numerous
' samples were markedly reduced (redoximorphic) suggesting that they have been water logged for
long period of time. As a follow-up to this observation, additional soil samples were collected on
' October 18 and 19, 2004. The purpose of the additional soil samples was to determine, if possible,
how much of the sediment located in the bottomland wetlands originated after Phase III
' construction activities (July 2002) began. The soil samples were collected by pushing an acetate
soil sample collection tube through the sediment until refusal. In most cases, refusal occurred at
the top of the original wetland soils. In most cases, the level of refusal corresponded to the original
A or O horizon of the buried wetland [the O (organic or leaf-litter) horizon and the A (topsoil)
1 horizon are the soil layers closest to the surface]. In some cases the samples were collected by
hand-pushing the tube into the sediment (in very wet conditions) and in other cases the tube was
t housed inside a steel push-auger tube and was driven into the sediment with a ten-pound sledge
hammer (in dry or compacted conditions). The acetate sample tubes were returned to Skelly and
' Loy's laboratory in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for analysis, logging, and photographing.
4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE BOTTOMLAND WETLANDS

Potential impacts to the bottomland wetlands were evaluated concurrently with the sediment
mapping and wetland delineation. The assessment included visual inspection of the following
functional parameters related to the bottomland wetlands:
' 1. health of the vegetative community;
2. alterations to wetland hydrology; and
3. continued usage by wildlife species.

1

J

Data collected as part of this assessment represent the sum total observation and impressions of
the evaluators and was not an exhaustive quantitative study.
-7-

t
1 5. REMEDIAL AND MITIGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of the wetlands assessment the project study team made observations
related to various strategies which could be implemented to remediate the potential impacts of the
' sedimentation and/or mitigate the environmental effects.

_$_

11

t
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
11

The findings of the Autumn Woods Wetland Assessment are summarized in the following
section. Data sheets, maps, soil logs, and photographs are included in the appendices of this report
and are cited as appropriate in our following summary findings. The Autumn Woods Wetlands
Assessment Summary Map (Map 1 attached) graphically depicts the findings of the sediment
mapping and wetland delineation study.
To facilitate the presentation and discussions of the findings in specific locations within the
bottomland, the following area designations have been given to certain portions of the wetland(s).
• Old Beaver Pond - Bottomland area located southwest of the property line
and is associated with wetland delineation points "sed2-1 to sed2-18".
• Northwest Bottom - Bottomland area which abuts the northwestern
boundary of the developed area and is associated with delineation points
"wlc-67 to wlc-30 and sed-13b to sed-24".
• North Corner - Bottomland area located directly north of the Phase III
developed area at the intersection of the bottomland and the Tributary
Hollow and is associated with wetland delineation points "wlc-30 to wlc-21
and wlb-28 to sed-13b".
' • Tributary Hollow - Extension of the bottomland community which follows
a tributary hollow south along the eastern portion of Phase III and is
associated with wetland delineation points "wlc-21 to w1la-10 (includes the
SB1 Basin) and wla-1 to wlb-28". Despite the name, there is no stream
channel in the Tributary Hollow.

Sediment Deposition Mapping
See Map 1
No sediment from Phase III construction activities was discharged into
Dutchman's Creek.
2. The majority of the sediment deposition has occurred in wetlands (as
opposed to the uplands) due to the topography of the bottomland area and
the direction of surface water flowage.
The wetland areas are located in topographic depressions which transfer
surface water runoff from the adjacent uplands across the floodolain to
Dutchman's Creek.
3. Sediment has been deposited over approximately 19.3 acres of the
bottomland.
-9-

t

I
4. The depths of sediment deposits can be summarized as follows.
• SB 1 Basin 0 to 28 inches
• Tributary Hollow 2 to 30 inches
• North Corner 1/4 to 5 inches
• Northwest Bottom 2 to 27 inches
• Old Beaver Pond '/2 to 18 inches
5. Significant changes in the depths of the deposits of sediment are observed
at old and/or existing outfall points which were impacted by required erosion
and sedimentation control basins.
6. Some sediment horizons in some soil samples appear to have been
deposited well before July 2002 (the start of Phase III).
Wetland Delineation
See Map 1 and Appendix C
7. The bottomland contains 16.7 acres of wetlands, which includes the
following.
• Wetland Area SB1 0.30 acre
• Wetland Area A 0.27 acre
• Wetland Area B-C 16.10 acres
• Wetland Area D and E 0.03 acre
Appendix C contains the wetland data forms completed for each individual
wetland area identified.
8. The wetlands presence in the bottomland can be characterized as a broadly
facultative late pole stage Palustrine Forested- Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
complex.
9. Portions of the North Corner area contain small upland inclusions.
10. Despite the sediment deposition into the bottomland wetlands, the shrub
and tree layers have not been adversely affected. The herbaceous layer
tends to contain more upland-oriented facultative species.
Sediment Characterization
See Map 1 and Appendix D and E
11. The wetland delineation and limit of the sediment deposition are largely
coincidental due to the topographic nature of the bottomland floodplain
where the bulk of the wetlands are found.
12. The soil samples collected as part of the soil characterization suggest that
a portion of the sediment column was likely deposited before July 2002 (the
-10-

' start of Phase III). The evidence which suggests this can be itemized as
follows.
a. The soils in the Phase III work area are from the Madison series,
which is moderately prone to erosion.
' b. The history of the Phase III portion of the property suggests that
some land disturbance activities such as logging have occurred in
the past. A detailed review of the property history was not con-
' ducted as part of this assessment.
' c. Several observations made of soil samples collected during the
wetland delineation and soil characterization strongly suggested that
some of the sediment may have been deposited prior to July 2002
(start of Phase III). These observations and findings are graphically
' illustrated on the attached Photographic Log of Select Soil Samples
(see Appendix E) and can be summarized as follows.
' i. Well-established root zones were present in some horizons
within the sediment column. These root zones suggest more
growth than would be likely from two growing seasons.
'
ii. The lower horizons of many of the soil samples appeared to
be reduced (redoximorphic) indicating a period of saturation
' longer than two years.
iii. Some of the samples contained buried leaf-litter zones and
' other organic material which suggested formation over a
period of several years.
t iv. Many of the samples contained numerous distinct `event'
horizons, which in all likelihood could not have been all
deposited in only two years.
' v. The upper horizons of the sediment column were predomi-
nately coarse sand, indicating they had eroded from the
t subsoil which was exposed by the Phase I I I excavation. The
lower horizons of the sediment column were predominately
silty clays, which likely eroded from the upper horizons (the
' Bt horizon) of the Madison soil. (The Bt horizon is the first
layer of subsoil generally associated with the clay layer found
below the A and O horizons). The silty clay soil was quickly
removed during beginning of the Phases III construction and
' likely did not erode to any great extent during that time
frame. However, the silty clay soil may have slowly eroded
for a number of years prior to the start of Phase III.
1

' vi. The lower horizons of some of the samples appear to be
developing pedigenic structures which indicate the particular
' horizon has been in place for several years.
13. It is distinctly possible that sediments may have been deposited in the
wetlands on and off for several years before the beginning of Phase 111.
Assessment of Potential Impacts
t 14. The deposition of sediment into the bottomland wetlands has not adversely
affected the function and value of the wetland. This conclusion is based on
the following observations made during the wetland delineation and soil
' characterization studies.
a. The tree and shrub community plants are alive and do not evince
' any sign of stress. Some trees have died above the SB1 dike no
doubt due to the prolonged inundation created by the dike. However,
the majority of the bottomland trees and shrubs are healthy enough
' to have produced new growth and fruits during the 2004 growing
season. If this bottomland community has undergone repeated
sedimentation events over the last 25 years, the community may
' have adapted to frequent sedimentation.
b. The sediment has not changed the general hydrologic condition of
' the bottomland wetlands. These wetlands still function as a
seasonal saturated palustrine community. In all likelihood the
original wetlands were not any wetter than the current condition.
'
c. The wetlands are still available to, and used by, a variety of wildlife
species typical in bottomland communities.
' 15. The repeated deposition of sediments has resulted in a more upland-
oriented facultative herbaceous plant community. This may have happened
over a several year period as the wetland routinely received a sediment
' deposit.
16. The sediment did not reach or otherwise impact Dutchman's Creek or its
tributaries.
' Remediation and Mitigation
17. Despite the seemingly large discharge of sediment into the bottomland
wetlands, there appears to be no functional impact to the wetlands. As
' such, remedial or mitigative planning does not seem warranted at this point.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, Skelly and Loy does offer the following
related to typical remediation and mitigation.
' a. Complete removal of the sediment is both impractical from a
construction standpoint and not prudent from a natural resource
' -12-
1

1

n
0

management standpoint. To remove the sediment, the entire
bottomland community would need to be cleared of all trees and
shrubs, and then only to remove, in most places, only a few inches
of sediment. The wildlife habitat value of the bottomland community
is a direct result of the species and structural diversity of the tree
and shrub layers.
b. Hydrology to the herbaceous layer could be restored by constructing
a series of very small berms across the wetlands. The intent of this
would be to raise the water level in the sediment column back to the
surface and then promote the establishment of a more hydrophytic
herbaceous plant community.
C. Vegetative and wildlife monitoring may be more appropriate at this
point than remediation or mitigation. Further monitoring would
conclusively determine if the recent sediment deposition has
adversely affected the bottomland wetlands.
-13-

L

t

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings set out above, the conclusions of the Autumn Woods Wetlands
Assessment are summarized as follows.
1. No sediment was discharged into Dutchman's Creek.
2. Not all the sediment in the bottomland wetlands was the result of Phase III
construction activities of Autumn Woods.
3. Sediment from a variety of sources and events has been deposited into
approximately 19.3 acres of the bottomland complex along Dutchman's
Creek, including 16.7 acres of palustrine wetlands.
4. The sediment deposited in the bottomland wetlands has not adversely
affected the function and value of the wetlands. The sediment deposition
has resulted in a more upland-oriented facultative herbaceous plant
community.
5. No remedial or mitigative action appears to be warranted at this time.
Future vegetative and wildlife monitoring may be appropriate to confirm the
findings of this assessment.
-14-

? 11

APPENDICES

t

t

APPENDIX A -
RESUMES, FIELD TEAM

BENJAMIN T. BERRA
Environmental Scientist
JQ&EL.LYAND L

t

LI

EDUCATION:
M.S., Geoenvironmental Studies, 1998, Shippensburg University
B.S., Geoenvironmental Studies, 1996, Shippensburg University
With over 6 years of Service at Skelly and Loy, Mr. Berra's project experience has focused primarily in the
area of jurisdictional wetland identification and delineation, but also included the study and evaluation of
aquatic ecosystems, wetland mitigation design/monitoring, stream and river classification,
threatened/endangered/rare species investigations, and environmental permitting and documentation.
Mr. Berra has completed many wetland identification /delineation, and permitting projects for transportation,
infrastructure, commercial, industrial, and residential development projects in Pennsylvania, New York,
Maryland, and North Carolina. He has experience in wetland function evaluation using the USACOE
Wetland Evaluation Technique II, Hydrogeomorphic Classification, and New England USACOE Descriptive
Method. He has experience in the identification of potential wetland mitigation sites and their subsequent
design, as well as experience in natural and constructed wetland monitoring.
Mr. Berra is on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission list of
Recognized Qualified Bog Turtle Surveyors (for Pennsylvania). Mr. Berra has conducted numerous
potential habitat evaluations and field surveys for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergh), a Federally listed
threatened species and State listed endangered species, and has experience with radio telemetry research
for the species.
Mr. Berra has also been involved with the biological evaluations for benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, and
freshwater mussel communities, ambient water quality evaluations, and physical aquatic habitat evaluations.
He has participated in surveys and research for the green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), a State listed rare
species and other freshwater mussels; the rough greensnake (Opheodrys aestivus), a State listed
threatened species, and numerous other amphibians and reptiles associated with wetlands, vernal pools,
and waterways. Additionally, Mr. Berra has experience in the design, restoration, and enhancement of
streams using the methodologies and techniques of Applied River Morphology (fluvial geomorphology.)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Field Crew Leader, Wetland Delineator, and Water Quality/Aquatic Resources Assistant, Route 322-
602, Corridor O Project, Centre and Clearfield County, PA - Responsible for the daily organization and
operation of wetland delineation crew, identification and delineation of wetlands within the project area, and
assisting with the water quality and aquatic sampling evaluations. Conducted field views, coordination, and
meetings with Pennsylvania DOT, state and federal regulatory agencies, and the general public regarding
project development, and alternative modification and selection. Assisted staff and teaming consultants in
the development of environmental documentation and reports. Approximately 1,300 wetlands and 200
watercourses were identified and delineated in the 12,000 acre study area.
Field Crew Leader, Wetland Delineator, and Water Quality/Aquatic Resources Assistant, State Route
2001, Sections 401/402, Improvement Project, Pike County, PA - Responsible for the daily organization
and operation of wetland delineation crew, identification and delineation of wetlands, and assisting with the
water quality and aquatic sampling evaluations. Approximately 125 wetlands and 40 watercourses were
identified and delineated within the 17 mile long project area.
Wetland Delineator, Surveyor, and Water Quality/Aquatic Resources Assistant, Central
Susquehanna Valley Transportation Improvement Project, Snyder County, PA - Responsible for the

BENJAMIN T. BERRA
Environmental Scientist
Page 2 of 2

identification and delineation of wetlands within the project area. Also responsible for the GPS surveying of
delineated wetlands, and assisting with the water quality and aquatic sampling evaluations.

Field Crew Leader, Wetland Delineator, Freestone Golf Course, Centre County, PA - Responsible for
field reconnaissance, and wetland delineations on this 270 acre site. More than 90 wetlands were
delineated along with over 50 watercourses. Also assisted with the project development and layout, and
permit application package and regulatory agency coordination.

Wetland Delineator, Surveyor, and Water Quality/Aquatic Resources Assistant, Route 15
Construction Project, Tioga County, PA and Steuben County, NY - Responsible for the identification
and delineation of wetlands within the project area, the surveying of delineated wetlands, and assisting with
the water quality and aquatic sampling evaluations. Mr. Berra also conducted the preliminary analysis and
investigations for potential wetland mitigation sites.

Project Manager and Wetland Delineator, Hershey Trust Property #148, Conewago Township,
Dauphin County, PA - Responsible for assisting with proposal development, initial field reconnaissance,
and wetland delineations on this 500+ acre site. More than 85 acres of wetlands were delineated. Was
also responsible for the preparation of the Wetlands Identification / Delineation and Functional Assessment
Report.

Wetland Delineator and Assistant Field Crew Leader, Covington Industrial Park, Lackawanna County
- Responsible for field reconnaissance, and wetland delineations on the 850 acre project area.
Approximately 25 wetlands were delineated totaling over 43 acres.

Aquatic Resources Assistant, Rush Township Aquatic Survey, Schuylkill County, PA - Responsible
for assisting with the in-field sampling for water quality and benthic macroinvertebrates at select sites on
township streams. Also assisted with the lab processing of the benthic macroinvertebrates, and the report
preparation.

Aquatic Resources and Wetland Monitoring Assistant, S.R. 0220, Sections C10, C11, and C12
Highway Improvement Project, Centre and Blair Counties, PA - Responsible for assisting in the
establishment of permanent monitoring points throughout the South Bald Eagle Creek, North Bald Eagle
Creek, and Buffalo Run Watersheds. Included with the monitoring were evaluations of stream flow, ambient
water quality, aquatic biota, and fluvial geomorphic conditions. Wetland monitoring consists of routine
monitoring of conditions in select wetlands (pre, during, post construction).

t
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - While a student, Mr. Berra was
employed for three years with the Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, Division of Conservation
Partnerships. His duties included coordinating and administering Rivers Conservation Grants for the Rivers
Conservation Program, and performing Scenic River Reviews for projects located within the corridors of
Pennsylvania's designated Scenic and Priority 1A Rivers.

I
I

I
I

v

1

I

RICHARD S. JOHNSTON
Geologic Technician/Global Positioning Systems
SKELLY a? Lt'0y
?r,?raaCx • erv+?ru+,?rra.
EDUCATION:
Enrolled in Geology Program of HACC
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS:
Trimble Certified GPS Operations Instructor
Mr. Johnston has been with Skelly and Loy for over 13 years and currently serves as the GPS Coordinator
for Skelly and Loy, Inc. His duties include supervising and conducting GPS survey and producing mapping.
This includes topographic mapping, engineering design, base map production, GIS data collection, and
establishment of aerial control points. In addition to his duties as GPS Coordinator, Mr. Johnston has
experience with wetland mitigation design including site selection, site evaluation, conceptual design, and
construction monitoring.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Survey Coordinator, U.S. Route 220 Improvement Project, Blair and Centre Counties, PA - Mr.
Johnston coordinated the survey work required for the completion of environmental studies. This included
stakeout of 30 miles of study corridor, the mapping of more than 1,200 wetland systems, and the mapping
of different forest habitats.
Construction Inspector, Whitetail Ski Resort, Franklin County, PA - Mr. Johnston served as the
construction inspector for eight acres of replacement wetlands.
Replacement Wetland Designer, U.S. Route 15, Section D51, Tioga County, PA - Mr. Johnston was
responsible for the design of 15 acres of replacement wetlands. His duties included performing preliminary
site assessment on potential replacement sites, performing detailed soils and hydrology testing on selected
sites, and the compilation of the conceptual plan.
Survey Coordinator, Intercon Systems, Dauphin County, PA - Mr. Johnston served as survey
coordinator for the preparation of topsoil and property mapping of an 18-acre parcel of land. Duties
included the conduction and oversight of topographic and property mapping to be used for the compilation
of land development plans
Survey Coordinator and Data Manager, U.S. Route 15, Tioga County, PA and Steuben County, NY -
Mr. Johnston's duties included the conduction and oversight of all survey work related to the environmental
study. This included stakeout of 27 miles of study corridor centerline and the survey of more than 600
individual wetland systems. In addition, Mr. Johnston was responsible for the oversight of the flow of data:
processing of survey data, inclusion of the data into project CADD mapping, and transfer of data from
CADD to GIS for use in calculating impacts.
THOMAS R. JOHNSTON, JR.
Assistant Vice President
Harrisburg Environmental Services

11
t

t

EDUCATION:
B.S., Biology, 1983, Shippensburg University
A.A., Biology & Chemistry, 1981, Shippensburg University
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS:
USACE, Baltimore District, Certified Wetland Delineator, MD
USFWS Habitat & Wildlife Procedures-HEP
US FWS Principles and Techniques of Electrofishing, PA
With over 18 years of service at Skelly and Loy, and as Assistant Vice President for Natural Resources, Mr.
Johnston is responsible for the coordination of biological and ecological services conducted out of the main
office in Harrisburg. Mr. Johnston has been actively involved in numerous transportation projects over the
past fifteen years in all of the Engineering Districts. These projects have ranged from major Joint NEPA-404
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to Environmental Assessments (EA) and Categorical Exclusion
Evaluations (CEE) to Joint Permit Applications (404 & 105 permits) to Wetland, Stream, and Terrestrial
Mitigation designs to Policy Development (wetlands & terrestrial) to the development and execution of
training programs. Mr. Johnston has served as Project Manager for large NEPA-404 EISs (U.S. Route 15)
and has served as natural resources study coordinator for variety of high profile projects (U.S. Route 220,
Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation project CSVT, Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway LVIH).
Recently Mr. Johnston has assisted the Environmental Quality Assurance Division (EQAD) with the
development of new policy initiatives and the several training programs related to highway operations and
environmental regulations.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Wetland Delineation, Impact Assessment and Permitting - Mr. Johnston has been involved in over 200
wetland projects in both Pennsylvania and the surrounding states. A majority of the projects have been
associated with transportation projects for PENNDOT, the PA Turnpike Commission, and other state DOTs.
In these projects, he has participated in the delineation of more than 1,500 individual wetland habitats using
both the 1987 and 1989 methodologies. Much of this work has included delineation of problem area
wetlands, disturbed wetlands, and farmed wetlands. Mr. Johnston has also been involved in the functional
assessment of wetlands using the narrative descriptive method, the Adamus method, HEP and PAM HEP,
the U.S. ACOE WET 2.0 method, and the COE Professional Narrative method. He regularly provides clients
with regulatory interpretation of the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Waterways Management Regulation (PA
Title 25 Chapter 105) and the Section 404 Regulations of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Johnston also actively
manages the preparation of all Joint Permit Applications prepared by Skelly and Loy with direct technical
participation in the preparation of the 404(b)1 analysis.
Wetland Replacement Design - A large portion of Mr. Johnston's technical activities centers around the
planning and design of replacement wetland that are provided as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
wetland impacts. Mr. Johnston has conducted 40 wetland replacement design projects that included over
100 individual basin designs, totaling more than 200 acres of replacement wetlands. Mr. Johnston designer,
supervised the design, or reviewed the design of most of the wetland replacement areas associated with the
U.S. Route 15 Corridor (14 wetland replacement areas), the U.S. Route 220 (1-99) Corridor (17 wetland
replacement areas), and the U.S. Routes 11 &15 Corridor (7 wetland replacement areas). Throughout the
course of these design projects, Mr. Johnston has developed several technologic methodologies which
have become industry standards such as: methods of estimating hydrologic demand based on primary
productivity, the use of concrete key spillways, and the establishment of backfill compaction specifications to
promote natural revegetation.

t
t

CJ
t

THOMAS R. JOHNSTON, JR.
Assistant Vice President
Harrisburg Environmental Services
Page 2 of 2
Environmental Study Areas - Mr. Johnston has worked on several replacement projects that incorporated
educational components into the design. These projects included the 1-279 highway project in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania; the Fairfield School District in Adams County, Pennsylvania; the Susquenita School
District in Perry County, Pennsylvania; and, a terrestrial site at the Whitetail Ski Resort in Franklin County,
Pennsylvania. Mr. Johnston is currently working on the design of wetland replacement sites for the Warren
Street Reconstruction Project in Berks and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. This project involves two
sites; one that will be developed for the Wyomissing Dark and the second for the Wyomissing School
District. Both sites will be developed for use as environmental study areas. Mr. Johnston is currently
coordinating the design of the Center Site, a 300 acre environmental restoration and education area
associated with the CSVT project in Synder County.
Wetland Enforcement Action - Mr. Johnston has provided assistance in resolving numerous wetland
enforcement actions brought by both the State and Federal governments. Many of these cases involved
complex delineation and jurisdiction issues which were able to be resolved with voluntary compliance. He
has provided expert testimony on a variety of wetland and ecological issues before the Pennsylvania
Environmental Hearing Board, Commonwealth Court, Federal District Court, and a Federal Grand Jury.
Recently Mr. Johnston has assisted PENNDOT in resolving two enforcement action related to unauthorized
maintenance and construction activities.
Wetland Instruction - Mr. Johnston has served as a wetland instructor for both government and private
clients. He has presented several basic wetland education programs for the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Mr. Johnston recently conducted (in
conjunction with the FHWA)a training course for PENNDOT personnel detailing the integration of the 404-
105 permitting into the Transportation Project Development Process. He has served as a key instructor in
Skelly and Loy's ACOE Wetland Certification Training Course and has presented many presentations to
Realtors, developers, and engineering organizations that provided education on the wetland regulations.
Policy Development - Mr. Johnston has assisted the EQAD in the development of several new policy
initiatives related to wetlands and terrestrial resources. He has assisted PENNDOT in the reevaluation of its
current wetland handbook and has developed technical recommendations related simplifying the
Department's approach to regulatory compliance. Mr. Johnston assisted PENNDOT in the formulation of it
new policy related to terrestrial impact assessment and mitigation planning. He is also involved in the
drafting of the terrestrial handbook that will outline the operational guidance necessary to implement the
new policy.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:
American Fisheries Society
Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Professionals
Society of Wetlands Scientists
RELEVANT TRAINING:
Aquatic and Fisheries Biology; Biostatistics and Computer Modeling, Shippensburg University
Wetland Identification and Delineation Training, Frank Plewa and Dr. Thomas Pluto, 1990
Identification of Hydric Soil, Shippensburg University, 1990
Wetland Identification and Delineation Training, Wetland Training Institute, 1989
1-1

fl

[J

t

1

t

AMY L. MOHR
Biologist QVJ9
?=? "I L
SKELLYAPIM LOY
t:N0NM4 '0 • DV'*"aV&§-rrAL
EDUCATION:T
M.S., Biology, 2004, Shippensburg University
B.S., Biology/Communications, 2002, Juniata College
During her 4 years of service at Skelly and Loy, Ms. Mohr has been involved in a variety of natural resource
projects including wetland identification and delineation, threatened/endangered/rare species investigations,
and environmental permitting and documentation. She has worked on wetland identification and delineation
projects for transportation, infrastructure commercial, industrial, and residential development in both
Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Ms. Mohr also has experience in monitoring of both natural and mitigated
wetland systems, as well as the associated data analysis.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Wetland Delineator, Route 322-602, Corridor O Project, Centre and Clearfield County, PA - Ms. Mohr
was responsible for identification and delineation of wetlands within the project area. Approximately 1,300
wetlands and 200 watercourses were identified and delineated in the 12,000 acre study area.
Wetland Delineator, State Route 2001, sections 401/402, improvement Project, Pike County, PA - Ms.
Mohr assisted in the identification and delineation of wetlands, and water quality and aquatic sampling
evaluations. Approximately 125 wetlands and 40 watercourses were identified and delineated within the 17
mile long, 400 acre study area.
Aquatic Resources and Wetland Monitoring Assistant, S.R. 0220, Sections C10, C11, and C12
Highway Improvement Project, Centre and Blair Counties, PA - Responsible for assisting in the
evaluations of stream flow, ambient water quality, aquatic biota, and fluvial geomorphic conditions
throughout the Buffalo Run Watershed. Wetland monitoring consists of routine monitoring of conditions in
select wetlands (pre, during, post construction) and the analysis of the collected data.
Biological Assistant, Route 15 Construction Project, Tioga Couty, PA - Ms. Mohr provided assistance
in surveys for threatened and endangered species in the project area including the King Rail and Great Blue
Heron and Indiana Bat species. The bat surveys utilized mist netting techniques following USFWS protocol.
Biological Assistant, S.R. 222 Roadway Improvements Project, Berks County, PA - Ms. Mohr assisted
in field surveys and radio telemetry research associated with Bog Turtle species monitoring. The field
surveys included the identification of all herptofauna observed within several monitored wetlands.
South Middleton Township, Phillips Tract Project Environmental Impact Assessment, Cumberland
County, PA - Ms. Mohr assisted in the identification of all land cover features (including wetlands and
watercourses) as well as cultural resource studies associated with the Phillips Tract Land Development
Project. Additionally, Ms. Mohr was responsible for the preparation of the associated environmental
permitting and documentation activities.
JENNIFER A. SJAARDEMIA
Environmental Scientist
1 EDUCATION:

J111*1
swELLYa? L
B.S., Environmental Science w/Geology Concentration, 1999, North Carolina State University
Ms. Sjaardema has participated in projects concerning environmental assessments, stream restoration,
hydrogeologic investigations, and environmental remediation. Her responsibilities on such projects have
included conducting field investigations, performing data analysis, and assisting with report preparation. As
a result, she is adept at geologic and hydrogeologic field mapping as well as many other field techniques.
She also prepared Categorical Exclusion Evaluations for stream and wetland restoration projects. Ms.
Sjaardema has been certified for 40 Hour HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120e) and is medically monitored.
Ms. Sjaardema is also experienced with AutoCAD and AutoCAD Map.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Hydrogeologic Investigations - Ms. Sjaardema has participated in several hydrogeologic investigations
performing field investigations, conducting data analysis, and producing project reports. She assisted in
formulating a hydrologic budget to determine the surface water recharge to investigate the development of
sinkholes. On this project, she was responsible for calculating stream discharge measurements using
Techniques of Water Resource Investigations of the Geologic Survey, Chapter A8.
Environmental Site Assessments - Ms. Sjaardema has conducted numerous Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs) to identify any potential environmental risks associated with a property being
considered for acquisition and/or as a construction site. In accordance with ASTM E1527-00, she has
researched public records, conducted personal interviews, and visually inspected the property to identify the
site's environmental condition. Mostly, involving commercial real estate and mining companies, these
properties have been located throughout the state of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Stream Restoration - For a major project with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Ms.
Sjaardema has been meeting with landowners of potential stream restoration sites. The purpose of these
meetings is to educate them concerning the stream restoration program, verify their willingness to
participate, and eventually obtain the required conservation easements. Applying the principles of fluvial
geomorphology, she has been collecting the field data necessary to identify additional stream restoration
sites. She also prepared CEEs for the Ellerbe Stream Restoration project that Skelly and Loy is conducting
for NC DOT. Ms. Sjaardema researched and compiled information regarding the following environmental
elements while preparing those CEEs: land use, social and community issues, wetland and associated data
forms, threatened and endangered species, agricultural resources, surface and groundwater resources,
Hazmat data, floodplain, historic properties, and archeological site information.
' Solid Waste Management - To ensure contractor compliance with project plans and specifications, Ms.
Sjaardema served as an inspector for the construction of a new municipal landfill. In this quality
control/quality assurance role, she verified the integrity of the seams of the geotextile liner. In addition, she
' performed monitoring of the adjacent active cell. Ms. Sjaardema's tasks included preparing drill logs,
supervising monitor well construction, conducting slug tests, and performing groundwater sampling.
' Environmental Remediation - Ms. Sjaardema participated in initial site investigations, which characterize
the extent of solvent and hydrocarbon contamination. Her responsibilities included supervising the
installation of groundwater wells, conducting a survey of nearby residential wells, and collecting
groundwater samples from monitor wells. She monitored the effectiveness of an Aggressive Fluid Vapor
' Recovery System (AFVRS) in reducing contaminant concentrations and controlling migration to adjacent
surface water. She assisted with the preparation of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to determine the best
remediation technology including an evaluation of air sparging, pump and treat, and/or bioremediation.
I

1

1

I
APPENDIX B -
GPS QUALITY CONTROL DOCUMENTATION
AND USACE GPS POLICY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
' Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
July 1, 1997
USE OF GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) FOR WETLAND SURVEYS
' Attached is the Wilmington District's policy detailing procedures for use of Global Positioning
System (GPS) wetland surveys within the state of North Carolina. Questions or comments should
be directed to the Regulatory Branch, ATTN: Mr. Ernest Jahnke at the above address, or at
' telephone [phone] by August 4, 1997.
t SUBJECT: Preparation of Wetland Delineation Surveys Using Global Positioning System (GPS)
Equipment
' TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This policy statement addresses the use of GPS equipment for surveying Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act wetland delineations for the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers within
North Carolina. Identification and delineation of wetlands must follow the criteria described in
the "1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual."
' if
i
d
icat
on an
Following are suggested procedures for preparing GPS surveys for ver
certification by a representative of the Asheville, Raleigh, Washington, or Wilmington Regulatory
Branch field offices:
a.) GPS surveying is most useful for extensive wetland delineations on large tracts of
' land.
b.) The GPS unit must produce a 2D RMS sub-meter accuracy at each survey point. This
accuracy will only be achievable by utilization of differential GPS techniques (either real-
time or post-processed).
c.) In the event vegetation prevents the efficient use of GPS methods for wetland
delineation, establish a separate baseline to the area to be delineated. This baseline will be
tied to the NC Lambert grid and each point of intersection (PI) will be clearly marked on
' the ground. The wetland line will be referenced to this baseline by station and
perpendicular offset measured to the nearest 0.1 ft. When this occurs, the plat should
indicate locations that have been surveyed in this manner. Since this will result in
' including small areas of uplands within areas identified as wetlands, the following survey
certification statement should be placed on GPS survey plats:

I
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies as waters and wetlands all areas
' of waters and wetlands regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
as determined by the undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change in the law,
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied on for a period not
to exceed five years from this date. This determination was made utilizing the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual."

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Representative
Title
Date
' d.) The wetland survey plat must be submitted for certification on legal size or smaller
paper or on a CD-ROM disc. It is also recommended that a large scale, blue line copy of
the survey be presented to the Corps representative for field verification purposes. The
plat must contain the following information:
1.) An identification of the location and extent of wetland limits within the
property boundaries. Acreage not examined for wetlands should be clearly
indicated. Coordinates cited should be NC Lambert, NAD 1983.
' 2.) An identification of "404 Wetlands" by using text, symbols, or shading.
3.) Consecutively numbered wetland points, or line segments.
4.) An identification of the GPS reference point (a fixed point at a known location)
' used in the DGPS real- time or post processed survey to which the survey is tied,
also in NC Lambert coordinates, NAD 1983.
' 5.) A table listing NC grid coordinates. List the distances between consecutively
numbered surveyed wetland points or the linear distances of line segments.
6.) As a measure of accuracy, one or more property corners and/or monuments
may be located by the GPS survey and compared to the existing metes and bounds
property survey.
1 7.) The seal and signature of a Registered Land Surveyor.
8.) A brief description of the GPS equipment used to certify the survey's level of
accuracy.

PROJECT SURVEY REPORT
Project Name: Autumn Woods Subdivision
Field Crew Leader: Rick Johnston
Survey Methodology: Differential GPS
Datum and Coordinate System: Assumed
Survey Units: U.S. Survey Feet
Control Type: Resection
Average Residual: 0.0618 M
Summary of Survey Control Residuals
POINT GPS UNCERTAINTY POINT RESIDUALS
Manhole 1.000 0.000
Manhole 1.100 1.110
Manhole 1.100 1.270
Manhole 1.100 1.540
Manhole 1.100 0.770
Manhole 1.100 1.360
Average 1.083 1.008
Ramey Corporation
Autumn Woods Sub-division
GPS Results
Feature Number Northina Eastina Flaa Number Horizontal Precision
1 580147.32 1398508.27 WIC-1 2.4
2 580112.80 1398464.38 wlc-2 5.2
3 580133.63 1398436.12 wlc-3 2.2
4 580159.28 1398424.87 wlc-4 2.2
5 580193.91 1398412.31 wlc-4a 2.4
6 580182.27 1398398.26 wlc-5 4.2
7 580192.92 1398377.15 wlc-6 2.1
8 580211.19 1398357.68 wlc-7 1.9
9 580271.39 1398348.32 wlc-8 2.9
10 580296.60 1398338.07 wlc-9 2.2
11 580327.99 1398324.79 wlc-9a 2.3
12 580398.13 1398273.65 WIC-10 2.4
13 580447.62 1398207.28 wlc-12 2.0
14 580464.77 1398180.83 wlc-13 2.0
15 580502.42 1398139.23 wlc-13a 2.3
16 580525.32 1398126.92 wlc-14 1.9
17 580569.96 1398124.59 wlc-15 1.9
18 580624.66 1398138.52 wlc-15a 2.7
19 580648.71 1398158.37 wlc-16 2.2
20 580688.93 1398151.54 wlc-17 1.9
21 580689.33 1398128.63 wlc-18 3.0
22 580760.64 1398092.80 WIC-19 1.8
23 580805.77 1398089.75 wlc-20 1.9
24 580834.59 1398080.88 wlc-21 1.9
25 580856.59 1398047.19 wlc-22 1.9
26 580878.36 1398003.94 wlc-23 1.9
27 580844.75 1397948.36 wlc-24 2.2
28 580822.79 1397892.84 wlc-26 2.3
29 580813.72 1397837.35 wlc-27 2.7
30 580783.54 1397805.65 wlc-28 4.4
31 580753.84 1397776.38 wlc-29 2.1
32 580723.11 1397762.89 wlc-30 1.8
33 580693.61 1397744.67 wlc-31 2.2
34 580646.00 1397693.09 wlc-32 1.9
35 580613.47 1397663.18 wlc-33 2.1
36 580584.28 1397646.69 wlc-33a 1.8
37 580556.23 1397632.42 wlc-34 1.7
38 580559.66 1397609.84 wlc-35 1.9
39 580544.15 1397594.70 wlc-36 2.5
40 580509.65 1397571.48 wlc-36a 2.5
41 580475.10 1397559.74 wlc-37 1.9
42 580443.97 1397549.42 wlc-38 1.8
43 580398.37 1397584.78 wlc-39 1.8
44 580352.83 1397572.51 wlc-40 2.2
45 580298.16 1397601.75 wlc-42 2.6
46 580287.00 1397606.91 wlc-43 2.3
47 580253.07 1397591.20 wic-44 1.7
Ramey Corporation
Autumn Woods Sub-division
GPS Results
Fpntura Niimhar Nnrthina Fastina Rao Number Horizontal Precision
48 580217.88 1397572.59 wic-45 2.7
49 580193.75 1397634.73 wic-46 1.7
50 580150.87 1397635.44 wlc-47 3.9
51 580107.88 1397630.34 wlc-48 1.7
52 580065.00 1397599.96 wlc-50 1.8
53 580005.40 1397631.95 wlc-51 1.6
54 579947.54 1397602.82 wlc-52 1.6
55 579928.32 1397553.89 wic-53 3.4
56 579903.82 1397532.99 wlc-54 3.1
57 579875.41 1397511.33 wlc-55 2.7
58 579844.86 1397496.41 wlc-56 2.1
59 579809.57 1397480.22 wlc-57 2.2
60 579757.33 1397476.60 wlc-58 2.1
61 579723.98 1397490.60 wlc-59 1.6
62 579672.87 1397470.72 wlc-60 2.9
63 579621.43 1397454.43 wlc-62 2.2
64 579575.49 1397424.24 wic-63 3.0
65 579539.85 1397390.02 wlc-64 1.8
66 579492.71 1397365.55 wlc-65 1.5
67 579445.99 1397303.15 wlc-66 2.0
68 579429.02 1397234.40 wlc-67 2.3
69 579324.53 1397204.37 sed2-1 3.3
70 579196.23 1397129.96 sed2-2 2.5
71 579009.17 1397084.88 sed2-3 2.6
72 578931.54 1397022.76 sed2-4 2.2
73 578902.53 1396885.80 sed2-5 2.0
74 578917.93 1396830.23 sed2-6 2.7
75 578896.72 1396822.85 sed2-7 3.0
76 578914.31 1396808.33 sed2-8 2.6
77 578932.22 1396803.85 sed2-9 2.8
78 578944.45 1396802.43 sed2-10 3.1
79 579024.80 1396857.73 sed2-11 2.3
80 579039.98 1396850.77 sed2-12 2.2
81 579082.78 1396783.65 sed2-13 3.0
82 579153.40 1396803.95 sed2-14 2.4
83 579239.98 1396891.47 sed2-15 2.2
84 579315.19 1396980.97 sed2-16 4.2
85 579377.87 1397009.23 sed2-17 2.3
86 579406.94 1397210.90 sed2-18 2.8
87 579432.19 1397073.53 sed3-1 2.9
88 579430.99 1396977.02 sed3-2 2.2
89 579462.40 1396976.04 sed3-3 1.8
90 579454.32 1397074.82 sed3-4 1.8
91 580581.84 1398370.39 wld-1 1.9
92 580597.05 1398362.81 wld-2 2.2
93 580598.56 1398359.49 wld-3 2.4
94 580607.58 1398355.71 wld-4 2.5
Ramey Corporation
Autumn Woods Sub-division
GPS Results
Goal ro KI.,mhcr Alnrthinn Factinn Flan NiimhPr Horizontal Precision
95 580615.94 1398356.67 wld-5 2.6
96 580628.67 1398360.15 wid-6 4.3
97 580636.53 1398350.35 wld-7 2.9
98 580649.87 1398345.82 wld-8 2.2
99 580655.75 1398353.70 wld-9 2.8
100 580681.87 1398358.59 wle-6 2.2
101 580686.31 1398358.99 wle-5 2.4
102 580672.18 1398373.33 wle-4 2.5
103 580686.10 1398367.50 wle-6 1.8
104 580692.34 1398362.91 wle-7 4.8
105 580700.58 1398377.44 wle-8 2.3
106 580694.17 1398390.93 wle-9 2.4
107 580702.90 1398392.10 wle-10 2.0
108 580718.70 1398382.87 wle-11 4.6
109 580719.42 1398374.33 wle-1 2.1
110 580727.89 1398357.74 wle-2 2.3
111 580720.35 1398350.21 wle-3 2.1
112 580711.20 1398354.24 wle-4 1.9
113 580701.15 1398348.11 wle-5 2.3
114 580647.03 1398355.10 wld-10 3.1
115 580631.86 1398354.26 wld-11 2.3
116 580620.73 1398364.01 wld-12 2.5
117 580616.94 1398373.95 wld-13 2.5
118 580611.51 1398367.64 wld-14 2.5
119 580604.94 1398359.36 wld-15 2.6
120 580591.86 1398365.60 wld-16 2.1
121 580584.60 1398376.45 wid-17 3.6
122 580130.14 1398598.45 w11-1 2.0
123 580122.17 1398570.07 wla-2 2.6
124 580123.87 1398505.81 wla-3 2.5
125 580089.70 1398496.89 wla-4 4.1
126 580041.23 1398481.97 wla-5 1.7
127 580018.17 1398484.01 wla-6 1.5
128 580001.42 1398515.76 wla-7 1.9
129 580037.11 1398533.59 wla-8 2.7
130 580034.35 1398558.46 wla-9 4.0
131 580002.18 1398578.08 wla-10 3.8
132 579964.35 1398595.38 wla-10 4.5
133 580140.26 1398503.22 wlb-1\c-1 2.1
134 580176.56 1398508.17 w1b-2 4.2
135 580214.64 1398497.74 w1b-3 2.2
136 580272.44 1398462.91 w1b-4 1.9
137 580317.25 1398441.28 w1b-5 2.1
138 580389.80 1398405.67 w1b-6 2.4
139 580429.60 1398375.20 w1b-7 2.1
140 580448.03 1398369.00 w1b-13 2.1
141 580501.97 1398338.49 w1b-9 2.1
i
Ramey Corporation
Autumn Woods Sub-division
GPS Results
FPatijrP NtimhPr Nnrthino Eastino Flao Number Horizontal Precision
142 580463.40 1398347.84 wlb-8 2.2
143 580457.30 1398368.39 wlb-12 2.3
144 580531.78 1398321.71 wlb-10 3.8
145 580540.93 1398335.88 wlb-11 3.7
146 580555.96 1398351.86 wlb-14 3.9
147 580577.28 1398340.67 wlb-17 2.1
148 580597.42 1398339.87 wlb-16 3.4
149 580601.42 1398321.96 wlb-18 3.9
150 580639.19 1398296.29 wlb-19 3.3
151 580684.66 1398312.37 wlb-20 3.8
152 580683.31 1398326.22 wlb-21 3.4
153 580718.87 1398329.55 wlb-22 3.3
154 580738.18 1398324.30 wlb-23 2.9
155 580762.55 1398298.16 wlb-24 3.3
156 580783.19 1398278.80 wlb-25 2.7
157 580777.50 1398302.81 wlb-26 2.7
158 580788.83 1398294.49 wlb-27 1.6
159 580856.43 1398233.69 wlb-28 1.8
160 580893.07 1398239.31 wlb-29 2.5
161 580916.13 1398274.36 wlb-30 1.9
162 580968.85 1398285.74 wlb-31 1.9
163 581016.94 1398292.07 wlb-32 2.9
164 581043.95 1398200.82 sed-1 3.2
165 581149.81 1398278.70 sed-2 3.7
166 581202.69 1398273.36 sed-3 3.2
167 581208.34 1398179.41 sed-4 2.0
168 581211.96 1398113.62 sed-5 2.3
169 581204.30 1398010.22 sed-6 2.3
170 581149.73 1397945.74 sed-7 2.3
171 581171.53 1397856.45 sed-8 1.8
172 581113.87 1397836.70 sed-9 1.9
173 581170.49 1397761.35 sed-10 2.7
174 581085.39 1397695.28 sed-11 1.3
175 581020.17 1397637.14 sed-12 3.5
176 580982.86 1397593.40 sed-13 3.7
177 580826.50 1397651.92 sed-13b 2.4
178 580735.18 1397528.17 sed-14 1.6
179 580626.50 1397472.93 sed-15 2.0
180 580471.12 1397432.93 sed-16 2.2
181 580256.86 1397456.11 sed-17 2.1
182 580125.23 1397467.11 sed-18 1.7
183 579979.40 1397443.72 sed-19 2.2
184 579871.29 1397351.29 sed-20 2.0
185 579770.25 1397329.13 sed-21 2.4
186 579648.74 1397222.12 sed-22 2.2
187 579522.05 1397146.16 sed-23 2.6
188 579457.10 1397128.28 sed-24 2.2

t

0

I
i

APPENDIX C -
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS

1

Autumn Woods Residential Subdivision
WETLAND DATA FORM
WETLAND ID: Wetland A EVALUATOR: TRJ, BTB, ALM
DATE: 13-Sep-04 WEATHER: Sunny & Warm; 80s
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Is the area a potential problem area? No
HYDROGEOMORPHIC CLASSIFICATION: NIA SIZE: N/A
VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION 50.00PSS 50.00PFO
WETLAND UPLAND
SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR
Betula nigra T FACW Ouercus alba T FACU
Selix nigra T DEL Smilax rolundifolia SS FAC
Plalanus occidentalis T FACW- Lonicera sp. SS FAC-
Acer rubrum T FAC Ilex opaca SS FAC-
Alnus serrulata SS FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that
are DEL, FACW, and FAC 100%
SOILS HYDROLOGY
MAPPED SOIL UNIT: N/A
HYDRIC SOIL UNIT: NIA SOURCE OF HYDROLOGY: high groundwater table
WETLAND CORE SOIL SCORE DEPTH OF SURFACE WATER: 1-3"
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE DEPTH TO FREE WATER IN SOIL PIT: 5"
0-14" 2.5Y 4/2 10YR 4/4 sandy clay DEPTH TO SATURATED SOIL: 0"
FIELD INDICATORS
PRIMARY INDICATORS
WETLAND FRINGE SOIL SCORE x Inundation
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE X
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Same as core
Water Marks
Ddft Lines
Sediment Deposits
UPLAND SOIL SCORE x Drainage Patterns
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE SECONDARY INDICATORS
0-20" 7.5YR 4/4 (none) sandy loam Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water Stained Leaves
FAC-Neutral Test
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Eplpsdon High Organic Content In Surface Layers In Sandy Soils
X Sulrxfic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hyddc Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hyddc Soils List
X Glayed or Low Chrome Colors Other (Explain in Basis of Delineation)
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hyddc Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Wetland? Yes
BASIS OF DELINEATION:
IThe delineation followed the extent of a topographically defined area with a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation in the scrub-shrub/tree layer. The area
contained sedimentation ranging from 18-36'; however, the soils buried under the sediment layer were low-chroma and mottled.

t

1

t

Autumn Woods Residential Subdivision
WETLAND DATA FORM
WETLAND ID: Welland B EVALUATOR: TRJ, BTB, ALM
DATE: 13-Sep-04 WEATHER: Sunny & Warm; 60s
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Is the area a potential problem area? No
HYDROGEOMORPHIC CLASSIFICATION: N/A SIZE: N/A
VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION %: 100.00 PFO
WETLAND UPLAND
SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR
Salix nigra SS DEL Lonicera sp. SS FAC-
Acer rubrum SS FAD Toxicodendron radicans H FAC
Betula nigra SS FACW Liriodendron tulipifera SS FACU
Quercus alba SS FACU Quercus alba SS FACU
Liquidambar styracieua SS FAC+ Ilex opaca SS FAC-
Platanus occidentalis SS FACW+ Smilax rotundifolia SS FAC
Alnus serrulata SS FACW Prunus sp. SS FACU
Onoclea sensibilis H FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that
are OBL, FACW, and FAC 88%
SOILS HYDROLOGY
MAPPED SOIL UNIT: N/A
HYDRIC SOIL UNIT: N/A SOURCE OF HYDROLOGY: groundwater
WETLAND CORE SOIL SCORE DEPTH OF SURFACE WATER: 0-3"
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE DEPTH TO FREE WATER IN SOIL PIT: 10"
0-4" 10YR 42 silty clay loam DEPTH TO SATURATED SOIL: 0"
4-16" 25Y 3/1 2.5Y 313 silty clay loam FIELD INDICATORS
16"+ 2.5Y 311 2.5Y 4/3 silty clay loam PRIMARY INDICATORS
WETLAND FRINGE SOIL SCORE x Inundation
QEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Same as core Water Marks
Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
UPLAND SOIL SCORE x Drainage Patterns
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE SECONDARY INDICATORS
0-20" 7.5YR 414 none sandy loam Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
FAC-Neutral Test
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Hisflc Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layers In Sandy Soils
Yes Sulfdic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Yes Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hyddc Solis List
Yes Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hyddc Soils List
Yes Gleyed or Low Chrome Colors Other (Explain in Basis or Delineation)
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hyddc Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Wetland? Yes
BASIS OF DELINEATION:
The delineation of Wetland B followed the extent of a hydrophytic vegetative community dominated by alder and black willow, along with low-chroma,
mottled Soils (with H2S odor), drainage patterns, and saturationlinundation. Flags B-11 to B-14 appeared to be an old channel that was excavated adjacent
to the original Wetland B. At flags B-15 and B-16, the wetland jumps across the drainage pattern to the main wetland. This PFO opens up into a small PEM
portion, at the lower end of the site. The sedimentation in Wetland B ranged from 0-30". This wetland was left open-ended.

I

Autumn Woods Residential Subdivision
WETLAND DATA FORM
WETLAND ID: Wetland D EVALUATOR: TRJ, BTB, ALM
DATE: 14-Sep-04 WEATHER: Overcast, 80s; rain in past 24hrs
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Is the area a potential problem area? No
HYOROGEOMORPHIC CLASSIFICATION: N/A SIZE: N/A
VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION %: 100.00 PFO
WETLAND UPLAND
SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR
Salix nigra T OBL Toxicodendron radicans H FAC
Acer rubrum T FAC Linodendron tulipifera T FACU
Linodendron lulipifera T FACU Acer rubrum T FAC
Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ Smilax rotundifolia SS FAC
Alnus serrulata SS FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that
are OBL, FACW, and FAC 80%
SOILS HYDROLOGY
MAPPED SOIL UNIT: N/A
HYDRIC SOIL UNIT: N/A SOURCE OF HYDROLOGIhigh groundwater table 8 some surface water collection
WETLAND CORE SOIL SCORE DEPTH OF SURFACE WATER: N/A
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE DEPTH TO FREE WATER IN SOIL PIT: N/A
04" 5YR 4/1 5YR 4/4 silty clay loam DEPTH TO SATURATED SOIL: 0"
4-16" 7.5YR 42 7.5YR 4/6 silty clay loam FIELD INDICATORS
PRIMARY INDICATORS
WETLAND FRINGE S OIL SCORE Inundation
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Same as core Water Marks
Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits

UPLAND SOIL S CORE x Drainage Patterns
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE SECONDARY INDICATORS
0-ta° TSYR 414 none sandy loam Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
x Water Stained Leaves
FAC-Neutral Test
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content In Surface Layers in Sandy Soils
Sulridic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Yes Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hyddc Soils List
Yes Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hyddc Soils List
Yes Gleyed or Low Chrome Colors Other ( Explain in Basis of Delineation)
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation Present? Yes Hydnc Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Wetland? Yes
BASIS OF DELINEATION:
The delineation of Wetland D followed the ext ent of a well defined topographically low area with water stained leaves, a hydrophytic vegetative community
dominated by black willows, and low-chroma, mottled, saturated soils. The sedimentation in the wetland ranged from 1-2".

I

Autumn Woods Residential Subdivision
WETLAND DATA FORM
WETLAND ID: Wetland E EVALUATOR: TRJ, BTB, ALM
DATE: 14-Sep-04 WEATHER: Overcast, 80s; rain in past 24hrs
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Is the area a potential problem area? No
HYDROGEOMORPHIC CLASSIFICATION: NIA SIZE: N/A
VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION %: 100 00 PFO
WETLAND UPLAND
SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR SPECIES STRATUM INDICATOR
Salix nigra T OBL Linodendron tulipifera SS FACU
Acer rubrum T FAC Acer rubrum T FAC
Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ Toxicodendron radicans H FAC
Corpus amomum SS FACW+ Smilax rotundifolia SS FAC
Alnus serrulala SS FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that
are OBL, FACW, and FAC 100%
SOILS HYDROLOGY
MAPPED SOIL UNIT: N/A
HYDRIC SOIL UNIT: NIA SOURCE OF HYDROLOGYhigh groundwater table & some surface water collection
WETLAND CORE SOIL SCORE DEPTH OF SURFACE WATER: N/A
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE DEPTH TO FREE WATER IN SOIL PIT: N/A
0-1" 7.5YR 4/1 sandy clay loam DEPTH TO SATURATED SOIL: 0"
1-5" 5YR 411 5YR 4/6 sandy clay loam FIELD INDICATORS
5-18" 10YR 42 10YR 4264/6 sandyclayloam PRIMARY INDICATORS
WETLAND FRINGE SOIL SCORE Inundation
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
UPLAND SOIL SCORE x Drainage Patterns
DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLE TEXTURE SECONDARY INDICATORS
0-1 e" TSYR 4/4 none sandy loam Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
FAC-Neutral Test
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layers in Sandy Soils
SuIfMIC Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aqulc Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hyddc Solis List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hyddc Soils List
x Gleyed or Low Chrome Colors Other (Explain in Basis of Delineation)
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hyddc Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Wetland? Yes
BASIS OF DELINEATION:
The delineation followed the extent of a topographically defined area with a vegetative community dominated by black willows. The soils in the area were low
chroma and mottled; the hydrology was evident by drainage patterns and saturation throughout the system.

11

APPENDIX D -
SOIL LOGS

I
SOIL BORING LOG
Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-2 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total Depth
6
0"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 .
N
a)

0 N
C
U
o

m
Ol -
E a)
U)
c

0 A

v

DESCRIPTION _
E
a

a
U 0
J
s

O

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0-1.5 5YR 6/6 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (ROOTS), COMPACT 1

2 2

3
1.5-4.0 5YR 5/6 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (ROOTS) W/ MICA
COMPACT
FRAGMENTS
3
,
4 4

5 7.5 YR 6/1 SILTY CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (LEAF) W/ 5
4.0-6.0 MICA FRAGMENTS, COMPACT
6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15,

16 16

17 17

18 18,

19 19

20 20

21 21 ,

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY AJL GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/10/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:

I
1

I
1
I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. SAMPLE 3 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total De
th
14
25"
DATE OCTOBER 16 &19, 2004 p .
m v
C
v
m
N -
E
_
o°

a
n

`
O
0
E
0

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0
2
0 5 YR 5/6 SILT LOAM
COMPACT
7 1
-
. ,
.
2 2
0
0
2 W/ MICA FRAGMENTS
COMPACT
R
F
N
RAIN SAND
3 -3.
. ,
7.5 Y
5/6
I
,
E G 3
3.0-3.5 5 YR 5/2 FINE GRAIN SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY. COMP ACT
4 3
5
4
5 7.5 YR 4/4 FINE GRAIN SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY 4
.
-
. COMPACT
5 5
4
5
6
5 7.5 YR 5/1 SILT LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (ROOT/BARK),
6 .
-
. COMPACT 6

7 7

8 6
5
9
5 COMPACT
5YR 5/1 SILT LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL
STEMS 8
.
-
. (
),
9 9

10 10

11 5 SILT LOAM
COMPACT
R 11
-12.5
9. ,
7.5 Y
5/1
12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 1 1 21

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ,AJL GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 111912004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
BKtg1:LYwio LOY

I
I

I
Client R AMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 3A Page 1 of 1
Project No. A

DATE O UTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION

CTOBER 18 &19, 2004
Total Depth
17.25"
N
U

L
d
o 42

0
?:
O
m
Fu

E m
10 -E?
(n N

v
>
0

ESCRIPTION _
E
Q
a
Q

a N
U

?
L_
D
o Ol
J

L
O.
N

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0 COMPACT
W/ FEW SMALL MICA FRAGMENTS
A 1
-2.0 ,
5 YR 5/6 SILT LO
M
2 2
E
E
Y
3 2.0-3.75 RAT
L
7.5 YR 6/4 FINE GRAIN SAND W/MICA FRAGMENTS, MOD
COMPACT 3

4 4

5 7.5 YR 5/1 SILT LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (STEMS/LEAVES), 5
3.75-6.5 COMPACT
6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 COMPACT
5 YR 5/3 SILT LOAM 12
6.5-17.25 ,
7.
13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

/ PROBING CO.
DRILLING Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
-
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGEDBY AWL, RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/9/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
::lSF?L'sE'N;e11i#i:
>; ?asrma: c?;wa?r:•:

1

Client R AMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 6 Page 1 of 1
Project No. A UTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total Depth
11"
DATE OCTOBER 18 819, 2004
n
47

L

0 N
C
tci
3
o
m
N -
E
m e
-

'o
m`
tr

DESCRIPTION

°

a
t

w
v
? 0
O
L
m
C7

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0
COMPACT
M
1 0-1.0 ,
7.5 YR 5/8 SILT LOA 1
OMP
T
2 1.0-2.0 AC
5 YR 5/6 SILT LOAM W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, C 2

3 3

4 4
5 YR 5/6 SILT LOAM W/ INTERBEDS OF MICA FRAGMENTS,
5 2.0-7.0 COMPACT 5

6 6

7 7
7.0-7.5 7.5 YR 3/1 ROOT MATERIAL W/ SILT LOAM (Buried O Horizon)
8 8

9 9
7.5-11.0 7.5 YR 6/1 SILTY CLAY LOAM
10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly 8 Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGEDBY RSJ, AWL GROUNDWATER

EASUREMENTS
M
DATE 11/912004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE/
NOTES:
ROOT MATERIAL THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROFILE
B ?LLY/.+b L17Y

I

I

I
Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 7 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION Total De
th 9
75'
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p .
w
L)

L
a

00 Y

U
3
o

m
4 m

E
n

y
o

D

ESCRIPTION _
E
2
a
o

a w
L
U
`

L
a
O
o
J
r

m

U

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0.0-1.50 5 YR 5/8 CLAY LOAM, COMPACT 1

2
1.50-1.75 5 YR 5/1 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (ROOTS & LEAVES),
COMPACT
2

3 1.75-3.50 5 YR 5/8 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (LEAVES), COMPACT 3

4
3.50-4.00 5 YR 5/1 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (ROOTS & LEAVES),
COMPACT
4

5 5
4.0-6.5 5 YR 5/8 CLAY LOAM, COMPACT
6 6

7 6.5-7.0 5 YR 4/1 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANICS (LEAF LITTER), MOD. COMPACT 7

8 8
7
0
9
75 5 YR 5/1 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANICS
ROOTS
COMPACT
7
9 .
-
. (
),
. 9

10 10

Ll 12

13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21 1 1

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY AWL GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/9/2004 (STATIC LEVEL/DATE/
NOTES:
47:l1?.
Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. $ Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION

T
t
l D
h
"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19,2004 o
a
ept 19

c
a
v
v
o

Fn
E
ID
U)
0 ID
ov
DESCRIPTION a
°

a
L

p
L

m

U
Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0
0
1
0
1 -
. 5 YR 4/6 GRAVELY SAND, LOOSE 1

2 0
1
3
0 2
-
.
. 5 YR 4/6 SILTY SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, COMPACTED
3 3

4 3.0-4.5 7.5 YR 6/6 SANDY LOAM W/ SOME MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY COMPACT
4

5 5
6
4
5
5 R
6 .
.
- 5 Y
6/6 SILT LOAM, COMPACTED 6

7 7
6.5-8.0 5 YR 5/6 SILTY LOAM, MODERATELY COMPACT
81 1 8

9 8.0-9.5 7.5 YR 4/6 SILT LOAM, COMPACTED 9

10 10

11 9
5
12
5 7.5 YR 7/4 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ROOT MATERIAL, MODERATELY 11
.
-
. COMPACT
12 12

13 13
12.5-14.0 7.5 YR 7/4 SILT LOAM, VERY COMPACT
14 14

15 15

16 16
14
0
19
0
17 .
-
. 7.5 YR 5/4 SILT LOAM, VERY COMPACT 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ, AJL GROUNDWATER
DATE 11/9/2004 MEASUREMENTS
(STATIC LEVEL/DATE!
NOTES:
H al-11-

I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-1 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION t
th
T
l D 11
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 o
a
ep

N

U

L
a
O
Y

v

3
O
m

m

E(u
(n C

T
0 v

ESCRIPTION

E

a
°
N

U

L

p

0
J

r

T
U'

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1

2 0
4
0 5 YR 5/6 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY 2
-
. COMPACT
3 3

4 4

5 5

6 4.0-7.5 5 YR 5/8 SANDY SILT LOAM W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, COMPACT 6

7 7

8 8
7.5-9.0 5 YR 4/6 SILT LOAM W/ LEAF MATERIAL, COMPACT
9 9

10 9
0
0
11 AM W/ LEAF LITTER
YR
/
SILT L
ORGANIC
COM
ACT 10
,
-
. 5
3
4
, (
),
P
O
11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 1 1
21

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ, AWL GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 1119/2004
(STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
HK?LLY.ti?LOY
Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-32 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION tal D
th
T 6"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 o
ep
Y1

`C

r
a
p Y

i
3
o
m

? m

m

o

ESCRIPTION
_
E
d
°
p
d N

0

r
o
O1
0

t

C
(D

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0
0
1
0 5 YR 5/6 SILTY CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATERIAL (STICKS),
1 -
. COMPACT 1
1.0-1.25 5 YR 5/1 SILT LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATTER (ROOTS), COMPACT
2 2
1
25
3
25 SILTY CLAY LOAM
YR 5/
COMPACT
3 .
-
. 7.5
6
, 3

4 3.25-3.75 7.5 YR 411 SILT LOAM W/ ORGANIC MATTER (ROOTS) 4

5 3
75
6
0 5
R
/8
TT 5
.
-
. 4
5 YR 5/1 W/ 2.
Y
MO
LES CLAY LOAM, COMPACT
6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly 8 Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGEDBY AWL GROUNDWATER
DATE 11/912004 MEASUREMENTS
(STATIC LEVEL /DATE/
NOTES:
' S ?LLYuk, LfT'

1

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-1 9 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION Total De
th 7
75"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p .

L
d
0
3
o
Fn
E
m -'t
U)
'o
DESCRIPTION
°
p

s
W
Q o
r
n

C7
Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0
5 YR 5/6 SANDY SILT LOAM W/ SMALL AMOUNT OF MICA
1 0.0-0.75 FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY COMPACTED 1
.75-1.5 5 YR 5/8 SILT LOAM W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, COMPACTED
2 2
COMPACTED
MI
FRAGMENTS
3 1.5-3.5 5 YR 4/6 SILT LOAM W/
CA
, 3

4 4

5 W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS
COMPACTED
SILT LOAM
R
/ 5
3.5-6.5 ,
,
5 Y
5
6
6 6

7 7
6.5-7.75 BURIED 0 HORIZON -7.5 YR 4/1 SILT LOAM MATERIAL
8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly 8 Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY AWL, RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 1119/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE I
NOTES:
6rrut,wni:QK

I
I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-27 Page _71-71
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION t
l D
T
th 8
25"
DATE OCTOBER 18 819, 2004 o
a
ep .
41
L

=
a ?
C

0
o
o
EE
N-

E m
n=
Z

o
o

ESCRIPTION
E
0-
8

0 N
L

L

D ?
J

L
m

cD

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1
0
2
75 5 YR 5/6 SILTY CLAY LOAM
VERY COMPACT
2 -
. , 2

3 3
2.75-3.25 O HORIZON 7.5 YR 4/1 PLANT. MATERIAL W/ SOME SILT LOAM,
MODERATELY COMPACT
4 4

5 5

6 3
25
8
25 7.5 YR 5/1 SHADING TO 7.5 YR 6/1 SILTY CLAY W/ 10 YR 618 6
.
-
. MOTTLES, COMPACT
7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

16 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly 8 Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RED, AIL GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 1 1/9/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
9KELLY' ,.n LOY>

I
I
I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 2H Page 1 of 2
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total De
th
34"
DATE OCTOBER 18 819, 2004 p

`-
s
o
C

v
3
m

N -
E d
m ?

o

ESCRIPTION

a
°
p
a

L

o rn
O
J
L
a
(D

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 5 YR 4/4 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, 9
0.0-18.5 MODERATELY COMPACTED. AT 15 ", A 1/4 " LAYER OF BLACK 5 YR
10 5/1 SAND 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19
18.5-20.0 5 YR 4/1 CLAYEY SILT W/ SOME MICA FRAGMENTS
20 20

21 21 1 1

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly 8 Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 1111112004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE I
NOTES:
?KELLYw+n1..C]Y:
s
t

F

u
Client R AMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 2H Page 2 of 2
Project No. A UTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION Total De
th 34"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p

U

r
a N
3
u
3
o
m
N?
E d
m
J)-
N
o
Q)

DESCRIPTION
CL
g
p

o
V

r
a
0 0
J
t
a
°
Ij

Remarks
20 20

21 21
20
0-23
5 5 YR 4/6 W/ 5 YR 4/1 MOTTLES CLAYEY SILT W/ FEW MICA
22 .
. FRAGMENTS 22

23 23

24 24
23.5-25.0 7.5 YR 4/3 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, SOME
INTERBEDS OF 5 YR/ 4/6
25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28
25
0
32
0 5 YR 4/2 W/ 5 YR 4/6 MOTTLES SILTY CLAY, NO MICA, MODERATELY
29 .
-
. COMPACT 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 32
0
34
0 ORIGINAL GROUND LEVEL
O HORIZON 33
.
-
. -
34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly 8 Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11111/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE I
NOTES:
(tf41z

L
1__J'I

S-'
u

J

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 2W1 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
T
t
l D
th
14"
DATE OCTOBER 18 819, 2004 o
a
ep
1. U C DESCRIPTION -
p t Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 0
0
10
0 10 YR 5/6 SILTY CLAY W ROOT MATERIAL THROUGHOUT THE 5
.
-
. HORIZON, VERY COMPACT
6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10
0
10
11
0 0 YR
/
COU
SE SA
W/
I
ME
O
11 -
.
. 1
4
3
R
ND
M
CA FRAG
NT, LO
SE 11

12 12
11
0
1
0 10 YR 4/2 SILT LOAM W/ ORGANIC STAINING, SOME INTACT
13 .
-
4. ORGANIC MATTER PRESENT IN HORIZON 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING / PROBING CO. -Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGEDBY RSJ GROUNDWATER

DATE
11117/2004 MEASUREMENTS

(STATIC LEVEL /DATE
/
NOTES;
L
E;I?I.LY ;..•.,

H

1

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 1 A Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION T
tal D
th 22"
DATE OCTOBER 16 819, 2004 ep
o
v
V

0 «?

v
3
m

E
U) -
N
'O
4U

DESCRIPTION
p

a
a y
U

L
0 0
J

m
C)

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1
0
0
3
0 5 YR 5/6 MED GRAINED SAND W/ PLANT MATERIAL, MODERATELY
2 .
-
. COMPACT 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9
3.0-15.5 5 YR 516 MED GRAINED SAND, MODERATELY COMPACTED
10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18
15
5
5
20 10 YR 5/4 SILT (ORGANIC MATERIAL PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE
HORIZON
ROOTS/PLANT MATERIAL
VERY COMPACT
LEAF ZONE
18
.
-
. (
),
,
AT 18
5"
19 . 19

20 20

21 21
20.5-22.0 5 YR 3/4 SILT W/FEW MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY COMPACT
22 22

23 23

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11111/2004
(STATIC LEVEL /DATE I
NOTES:

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 1 B Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION T
t
l D
th 23"
DATE OCTOBER 18 819, 2004 o
a
ep

U

t

o

=

cv
3

m

N

E m
cn =

N .--.

'o
w v

ESCRIPTION
d

a
0
FL v

U

L

D
0

-?
r

m
c9

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0
0
2
0 5 YR 514 MED GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, 1
.
-
. MODERATELY COMPACT
2 2

3 3
2.0-4.5 5 YR 4/4 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME MICA FRAGMENTS, LEAF
LITTER AT BOTTOM OF HORIZON
COMPACT
4 , 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8
5
4
12
5 5 YR 4/4 MED GRAINED SAND, W/ SMALL AMOUNT OF LEAF
MATERIAL
MODERATELY COMPACT
SAND GETS COARSER AT
9 -
.
. ,
(
FEW MICA FRAGMENTS
DEPTH) 9
,
10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 5
12
15
5 5 YR 5/4 CLAYEY SILT, MANY ORGANIC MATERIAL IN HORIZON, 14
-
.
. MODERATELY COMPACT
15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 4
T 19
15.5-23.0 /3 SILTY CLAY, ROOTS
5 YR
HROUGHOUT HORIZON,
MODERATELY COMPACT TO VERY COMPACT
20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGEDBY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/11/2004
(STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
FBKE?LLY ,l_QY.I

C

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 1 C Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total De
th
20"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p
v
L

L

o
C
U
3

m
N-
E
N C

?-

'
o
u 'R
N

DESCRIPTION

o
L

L

Q °'
J

0

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0 5 YR 4/6 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, 1
0.0-2. MODERATELY COMPACT
2 2

3 2
0
4
0 5 YR 4/6 CLAY SILT W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY COMPACT, 3
.
-
. LEAF MATERIAL AT BOTTOM OF HORIZON
4 4

5 RSE GRAINED SAND
MODERATELY COMPACT 5
4.0-6.0 ,
10 YR 5/6 MED COA
6 6

7 7
NED SAND W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS

8
6.0-9.5 5 YR 6/6 MED GRAI
,
SLIGHTLY COMPACT
8

9 9

10 9.5-10.0 5 YR 6/6 MED GRAINED SAND W/ FEW PLANT MATERIAL, COMPACT 10

11 MODERATELY COMPACTED
GANIC MATERIAL
O 11
10.0-12.0 ,
5 YR 3/2 SILT W/
R
12 , 12

13 13

14 0
16
0
12 5 YR 3/3 SILT/FINE GRAINED SAND W/ FEW ORGANIC MATTER, 14
.
-
. VERY COMPACT
15 15

16 16

17 17

18 5 YR 412 W/ 5 YR 6/6 MOTTLES, FINE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME MICA 18
16.0-20.0 FRAGMENTS, VERY COMPACT
19 19

20 1 1
r:1 1
21 2

DR
ILLING I PROBING CO.
Skelly & Loy, Inc.
DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/11/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE!
NOTES:
BKELLYNn LS'.T'

F1

I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 2C Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total De
th
20"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p
ai
L

r
a
O
c
U
3
o
m
a1 -
E a)
m
U)

S
w ._.

DESCRIPTION
Ea
CL
p
a w
L

L
a
?
J
L
a
m
?

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1

2 2
0.0-4.5 5 YR 4/4 MED. GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS,
SLIGHTLY COMPACTED
3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11
5 YR 4/4 MED TO FINE GRAINED SANDS W/ MANY MICA
12 4.5-19.0 FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY COMPACTED, INTERBEDS OF 5 YR 5/6 12
AND SYR 6/6 (MAY BE INDICATIVE OF STORM EVENTS)
13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19
19
0
20
0 O HORIZON
ORIGINAL GROUND LEVEL
20 .
-
. - 20
-
21 21 1 1

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/11/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
B1?I.LL.QY

I
i

I

I
I
I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 3 COMPOSITE Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
t
l D
T
"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 a
o
epth 15

U

L

a

D «

ci
3

o

O
_
N
E (D

cu C

co -

N -?
'o 2i

u
v-

of

ESCRIPTION

R
°

p

a N
N
U

L

15 0

J
t

a

[0

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0.0-1.5 5 YR 4/3 SILT LOAM W/ LEAF LITTER, W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS 1

2 5
1
2
25 2
-
.
. 5 YR 5/4 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, LOOSE
3 3

4 2.25-5.0 5 YR 5/3 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY COMPACT 4

5 5
5
0
6
0 5 YR 5/3 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS,
6 .
-
. MODERATELY COMPACT 6
6
0
7
0 5 YR 5/3 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS,
7 .
-
. COMPACT 7
7
0
8
0
8 .
-
. 5 YR 3/3 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, LOOSE 8

9 9
8.0-10.5 5 YR 4/4 SILTIFINE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY COMPACT
10 10

11 10.5-11.0 5 YR 513 SILT CLAY W/ LEAF MATERIAL, MODERATELY COMPACTED 11
11
0
12
0
12 .
-
. O HORIZON - ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE 12

13 13
12
0
15
0 5 YR 512 W/ 5 YR 6/8 AND 5 YR 2.5/1 MOTTLES SILTY CLAY,
14 .
-
. COMPACT 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 1g

19 19

20 20
P:: P:
21 21

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER

DATE
11I11I2004 MEASUREMENTS

(STATIC LEVEL /DATE
/
NOTES:
L

1

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. UNKNOWN Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION Total De
th 16"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p
w

U

r
a
Q

=
U
3
o
m _

E (D
m i?
c)

N .-.
O 'R

ESCRIPTION

d
a
p

° w

U
`
s
n
o
0
J
r
a
m
C7

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0.0-1.5 7.5 YR 4/6 COARSE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS,
LOOSE 1

2 2
1
5
3
5 5 YR 7/6 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY
3 .
-
. COMPACT 3

4 4

5 5
3.5-7.0 7.5 YR 5/8 MED TO COARSE GRAINED SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS,
SOME PLANT PIECES
MODERATELY COMPACTED
6 , 6

7 7

8 7.5 YR 4/6 COARSE GRAINED SAND W/ SMALL GRAVEL AND SOME 8
7.0-9.5 MICA FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY AMOUNT OF PLANT MATERIAL,
9 MODERATELY COMPACTED 9

10 10

11 7.5 YR 5/8 COARSE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME GRAVEL, SOME MICA 11
9.5-13.0 FRAGMENTS, NO PLANT OR ORGANIC MATERIAL, MODERATELY
12 COMPACTED 12

13 13
13.0-13.5 O HORIZON- ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
14 14

15
13.5-16.0 7.5 YR 4/2 SILTY CLAY W/ SOME MICA FRAGMENTS 7.5 YR 4/1
MOTTLES (FEW AND FAINT)
15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/11/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE I
NOTES:
LY7?-? I
KELLY2J..J %LDY

1

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 2B Page 1 of 2
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
l D
th
T
t
34"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 o
a
ep
n
L

a
? M
C
0
3
o
m
N -

U)-

'o 2
°

DESCRIPTION
D
a

a N
L

L
a
o
0
L
m

C7

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1

2 2
"

3
0
0
6
0 7.5 YR 6/6 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME PLANT MATERIAL AT 1
.
SOME MICA FRAGMENTS
2 SMALL INTERBEDS OF COARSER
3
.
-
. ,
SANDS(MAY HAVE BEEN FROM STORM EVENTS)
4 4

5 5

6 6

7 6.0-7.5 5 YR 516 COARSE SAND W /MICA FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY
COMPACT 7

8 8

9 9

10 10
7.5-13.0 5 YR 5/6 MED. GRAINED SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY
COMPACTED
11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14
13
0
16
0 COARSE GRAINED SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS
LOOSE
5 YR 5/
15 .
-
. 6
, 15

16 16

17 16
0
18
0 5 YR 5/6 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME INTERBEDS OF BLACK 17
.
-
. MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PLANT MATERIAL, COMPACT
18 18

19
18
0
20
0 5 YR 5/6 COARSE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME GRAVEL AND MICA 19
.
-
. FRAGMENTS
20 20

21 21

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly 8 Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ ROUNDWATER
EASUREMENTS
E

DATE
1111112004 TATICLEVEL/DATE/
NOTES:
L Y7
icELLt..rYILQi l

1

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 26 Page 2of 2
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION Tot
l De
th 34"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 a
p
N

.

? N

U
O

_

m

M
E

C
V)

,-.
OO s
N
-'
of

ESCRIPTION

o.
a N

E-

L

n
oO
0

=

to

0

emarks
20 20
0
20
21 SILTY FINE GRAINED SAND W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY
21 -
. COMPACT 21

22 22

23 21
0
25
0 5 YR 4/6 SILTY CLAY
VERY COMPACT 23
.
-
. ,
24 24

25 25
25.0-25.5 5 YR 5/6 MED COARSE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA
FRAGMENTS, VERY COMPACT
26 5
25
26
5 VERY COMPACT
5 YR 5/4 SILTY CLAY 26
-
.
. ,
27 27

28 28

29 26.5-31.0 5 YR 4/6 SILTY CLAY W/ SOME 5 YR 5/4 MOTTLES, VERY COMPACT 29

30 30

31 31

32 32
34
31
0
0 O HORIZON
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
33 .
-
. - 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/1112004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:

l
9KE LLY LIIY
LLY
1

1
Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-34 Page It of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total De
th
9
5"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19,2004
p
.
N
L

t
'E'L
? «
C
cv

3
O
m
N-
E m

m
?-

o

DESCRIPTION
Ea
8

p
a N
L
=

L
a
? 0
J
t
o.

m
(7

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1
7.5 YR 4/6 COURSE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS,
2 0.0-3.5 MODERATELY AMOUNT OF ORGANIC MATERIAL, SLIGHTLY 2
COMPACT
3 3

4 4

5 3.5-6.0 7.5 YR 4/6 SILTY FINE SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, SLIGHTLY
COMPACT 5

6 6

7 6
0
8
0 7
5 YR 4/3 W/ 7
5 YR 4/6 MOTTLES SILTY CLAY
SLIGHTLY COMPACT 7
.
-
. .
.
,
8 8

9 8.0-9.5 BURIED O HORIZON W/ SOME 7.5 YR 3/1 SILT 9

10 10

11 11,

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21 1 1

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/1112004 (STATIC LEVEL /)ATE/
NOTES:
l
9KC11Y?LX1Y

¦
a
a

¦

1
Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-35-1 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
DATE OCTOBER 18 819, 2004 Total Depth 4"
w
U

C

.c
a
Q y

U

o
m
m

E uZ
m
U)

'

o
u
of v

ESCRIPTION
E

O

o
^
d)

.
p
0
0

J

C7

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0.0-1.5 5 YR 5/6 SILTY CLAY LOAM, COMPACT, ORGANIC MATERIAL 1

2
1.5-2.5 5 YR 4/2 SILT LOAM, COMPACT, ORGANIC MATERIAL 2
3

2.5-4.0
7.5 YR 5/3 SILT LOAM, COMPACT
ORGANIC MATERIAL 3
4 , 4

5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21 21

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ,AJL GROUNDWATER
DATE 1119/2004 MEASUREMENTS
(STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
J?
i-k iLL
I

I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-35 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19,2004 Total Depth 9

W

t

a
p N

v
3

o
ao

U) -
E ?
10 c

cn

8 43
`-'

ESCRIPTION

8

p

a N
N
t

s
o
Q
m

a

T
(7

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0
0
2
0 1
.
-
. 5 YR 5/8 FINE GRAIN SAND W/ MICA, MODERATELY COMPACT
2 2
2
0
3
0

3 .
-
. 5 YR 5/8 COURSE GRAIN SAND W/ MICA, COMPACT
3
3
0

4 .
-4.0 5 YR 5/6 SANDY LOAM W/ MICA, COMPACT
q

5 5
4.0-6.5 7.5 YR 5/3 CLAY LOAM W/ MICA W/ ORGANICS (ROOTS), COMPACT
6 g

7 7

8 6.5-9.0 7.5 YR 5/1 CLAY LOAM W/ ORGANICS (LEAVES & ROOTS),
COMPACT
8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 211 1

DRILLING I PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY AJL GROUNDWATER

DATE
1111012004 MEASUREMENTS

(STATIC LEVEL /DATE
I
NOTES;
aK6CLYwa
i

I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 5 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
T
t
l D
th
9"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 o
a
ep

a w

v
3

o
m

v m
E
c
U)

o
ao

?

ESCRIPTION

E
a

a N
d

L

a
?

m

(D

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0
0-0.5 5 YR 4/6 SILT W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY COMPACT

1 0.5-1.0 5 YR 5/6 COARSE SAND W/ SMALL GRAVEL, LOOSE W/ SOME MICA
FRAGMENTS
1
1.0-1.5 5 YR 4/4 FINE GRAIN SAND W/ PLANT MATERIAL
2 2

3 3
1.5-5.0 5 YR 5/6 COARSE GRAINED SAND, LOOSE W/ SMALL GRAVEL AND
MICA FRAGMENTS
4 4

5 5

6 6
0
8
5 7.5 YR 4/8 FINE GRAINED SAND W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY
7 -
.0
. COMPACT 7

8 8
8
0
9
0 5 YR 4/6 SILTY FINE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME MICA FRAGMENTS,
9 .
-
. MODERATELY COMPACTED 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER

DATE
11111/2004 MEASUREMENTS

[(STATIC LEVEL/DATE/
NOTES:
F-L

C

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. C-1 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION T
t
l D
th 75'
13
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 o
a
ep .

L

8
o

0

3
2
Co ? m

E uZ
(U
C
U7

' a?
0
N

ESCRIPTION E

a
a

a

L

a

p
O

C

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0
2
0 7.5 YR 4/6 GRAVEL AND COURSE GRAINED SAND, LOOSE, SOME 1
-
. VEGETATIVE MATERIAL AND SOME MICA FRAGMENTS
2 2

3 2
0 5 YR 5/8 SILT, VERY COMPACT, W// LAYER OF PLANT MATERIAL AT 3
.
-4.0 3", ROOTS AT BOTTOM OF HORIZON
4 4

5
4.0-5.5 7.5 YR4/6 FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, W/ SOME MICA
FRAGMENTS
5

6 5
6 6
.5-
.5 5 YR 5/6 SANDY SILT, COMPACT
7 7
6
5
8
5 7.5 YR 511 W/ 10 YR 6/8 MOTTLES SILT, VERY COMPACT (ROOTS AT
8 .
-
. BOTTOM OF HORIZON) 8

9 8
5
9
5 5 YR 5/6 FINE GRAINED SAND, SLIGHTLY COMPACT (PLANT 9
.
-
. MATERIAL AT BOTTOM OF HORIZON)
10 10

11 11

12 9.5-13.75 10 YR 4/2 W/ 10 YR 6/8 MOTTLES SILTY CLAY, VERY COMPACT 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER / PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11I11I2004
(STATIC LEVEL /DATE
/
:
NOTES
7+
(-!'?FCELLY
11

F

0

J

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. B-20 Page It of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total De
th
12"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p

0j
c

L
c
o

U
3
o
m

a
Z

E
a
<o c
-

>

a
O
of

ESCRIPTION

a

8

p
0- N

o

t
aai
p

=

a
C7

emarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1

2 MIC
FRAGMENTS
SLIGHTLY COMPACT 2
0-4.0 5 YR 4/4 SILT W/ MANY
A
,
3 3

4 4

5
4.0-5.5 7.5 YR 5/8 SILT W/SMALL AMOUNT OF CLAY, W/ FEW MICA
FRAGMENTS
COMPACT
5
,

6 5.5-6.0 7.5 YR 4/6 SILT W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY
COMPACT
6

7 6.0-7.5 7.5 YR 5/8 SILT W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS, COMPACT 7

8 7.5-8.0 O HORIZON - ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE 8

9 9
8.0-10.5 5 YR 3/1 W/ 10 YR 6/8 MOTTLES/ OXIDIZED RISOSPHERES, SILTY
MODERATELY COMPACT
CLAY
10 , 10

11 11
10.5-12.0 7.5 YR 4/2 W FEW 10 YR 6/8 MOTTLES SILTY CLAY W/ MODERATELY
MODERATELY COMPACTED
AMOUNT OF MICA FRAGMENT
12 , 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

DRILLING/ PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11111/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE I
NOTES:
9KELLY?.?{_CTY'

I
I

I

I
I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. WA4 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION
Total De
th
21
5"
DATE OCTOBER 18 &19, 2004 p .
a

`-
L
a w

U
3
o
m
N
E
m e

o
a?i

DESCRIPTION
a
°

a n

c

) 0

t
m

LD

Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 1

2
0-3.5 10 YR 4/6 COURSE GRAINED SAND W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY COMPACTED
2

3 3

4 4
3.5-5.0 7.5 YR 6/4 MED GRAINED SAND W/ SOME ROOT MATERIAL, VERY
COMPACT
5 5

6 6

7 7
5.0-9.5 5 YR 4/6 SILTY FINE GRAIN SAND W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY
COMPACT
8 8

9 9

10 10

11 7.5 YR 5/6 SILT W/ FINE GRAIN SAND W/ FEW MICA FRAGMENTS, 11
9.5-12.5 VERY COMPACT
12 12,

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 12.5-19.0 5 YR 5/4 SILTY CLAY W/ SOME ROOT MATERIAL, VERY COMPACT, O
HORIZON AT 19" 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20
19.0-21.5 7.5 YR 4/2 W/ 5YR 5/4 MOTTLES SILTY CLAY, VERY COMPACT, W/
SOME ORGANIC MATERIAL
21

22 21

DRILLING t PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER 1 PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGEDBY RSJ GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/11/2004 (STATIC LEVEL /DATE /
NOTES:
SKFLLYuu
I
I

I
I

Client RAMEY CORPORATION Sample No. 4 Page 1 of 1
Project No. AUTUMN WOODS SUB DIVISION T
t
l D
th 8
5
DATE OCTOBER 18 819, 2004 o
a
ep .
U

L

o
ti
3
0
m
E a?
(? E N .-.
o

?
DESCRIPTION E
°

o_ U

CL
a J
t

?
Remarks
0 GROUND SURFACE 0

1 0-1.5 5YR 5/6 SILTY CLAY, COMPACT 1

2 1
5
2
25 SI
T LOAM W/ MICA AND ROOT MA
E 2
.
-
. 5 YR 5/6
L
T
RIAL
3 3
2
25
4
50 W/ MICA
ND BRANCH M
T
R
4 .
-
. 5 YR 5/6 SILT LOAM
A
A
E
IAL, COMPACT 4

5 4
50
5
50 O
B
CH 5
.
-
. 7.5 YR 5/2 SILTY CLAY L
AM W/
RAN
MATERIAL, COMPACT
6 5
50
6
50 YR 5/8 SILTY CLAY LOAM
COMPACT 6
.
-
. ,
7.5
7 7
6
50
8
50 R
T
8 .
-
. 7.5 YR 5/1 SILTY CLAY LOAM W/
MATERIAL, COMPACT
OO 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20
1
21 21 1

DRILLING / PROBING CO. Skelly & Loy, Inc. DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER I PROBER SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY GROUNDWATER
MEASUREMENTS
DATE 11/9/2004 (STATIC LEVEL/DATE/
NOTES:
L-?L

n

11

APPENDIX E -
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG OF
SELECT SOIL SAMPLES

AUTUMN-WOODS
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
SELECT SOIL SAMPLES
MT. HOLLY, GASTON COUNTY, NC
AS NOTED SKELLYANo LOY, LLP. DR4WNBY:SSOM
ENGINEERS-CONSULTANTS
IIIIBIW 6{01 FALLS OF THE NEUSE ROAD, SURE 103 CHECKED 6Y: TRI
NORTH RIDGE BUSINESS PARK- RALEIGH, NORTH
(pt G1018-3635180016B1E53t FAK Me1S16.1M0
D1014 ° M'M°'0? DWG. NO. I OF 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5 YR 4/4 FINE GRAINED SAND
W/MANY MICA FRAGMENTS, 9
MODERATELY COMPACTED
AT 15 A 1/4' LAYER OF
BLACK 5 YR 5/1 SAND.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
5 YR 4/1 CLAYEY SILT W/SOM
MICA FRAGMENTS.
20
21
5 YR 4/6 W/ 6 YR 4/1 MOTTLES 22
CLAYEY SILT W/ FEW MICA
FRAGMENTS
23
7.5 YR4/3 FINE GRAINED SAND 24
W/MANY MICA FRAGMENTS,
SOME INTERBEDS OF 5 YR/
4/6
25
26
27
5 YR 4/2 W/ 5 YR 4/6 MOTTLES 28
SILTY CLAY, NO MICA,
MODERATELY COMPACT
29
30
31
co 32
-o
m 0 O HORIZON - ORIGINAL 33
$D GROUND LEVEL
G? C
co
F 34
CD _
r
r O
m0
cn

N
2
7.5 YR 6/6 FINE GRAINED
SAND W/ SOME PLANT
MATERIAL AT 1" SOME MICA
FRAGMENTS, 2 SMALL
INTERBEDS OF COARSER
SANDS (MAY HAVE BEEN
FROM STORM EVENTS)
5 YR 5/6 COARSE SAND W/
MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY COMPACT.
5 YR 5/6 MED GRAINED SAND
W/ MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY COMPACT.
5 YR 516 COARSE GRAINED
SAND W/ MICA FRAGMENTS,
LOOSE
5 YR 516 FINE GRAINED SAND
W/ SOME INTERBEDS OF
BLACK MATERIAL THAT MAY
BE PLANT MATERIAL,
COMPACT
5 YR 5/6 COARSE GRAINED
SAND W/ SOME GRAVEL AND
MICA FRAGMENTS
SILTY FINE GRAINED SAND W
FEW MICA FRAGMENTS, VER`
COMPACT
5 YR SILTY CLAY, VERY
COMPACT
5 YR 5/6 COARSE GRAINED
SAND W/ SOME GRAVEL AND
MICA FRAGMENTS
5 YR SILTY CLAY, VERY
COMPACT
5 YR 4/6 SILTY CLAY W/ S
5 YR 514 MOTTLES, VERY
COMPACT
O HORIZON - ORIGINAL
GROUND LEVEL
1 r,
2 ?
4r? ,
6
r•
7
10
11
12 >#
13
14
15
16 KA
17 a
18
19 f
20
21 f.
22 K;
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
y
30
31
32
33
a-
34
N
co
5 YR 5/4 MED GRAINED SAND 1
W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY i
S=
7.5 YR 518 SILT LOAM,
1
COMPACT
s
r 3
5 YR 414 FINE GRAINED SAND
2 W/ SOME MICA FRAGMENTS,
LEAF LITTER AT BOTTOM OF
7.5 YR 5/5 FINE GRAIN SAND, HORIZON, COMPACT 4
W/ MICA FRAGMENTS,
COMPACT q
5 YR 5/2 GRAIN SAND W/ MICA 3 ".
FRAGMENTS, MODERATELY, 5
COMPACT
7.5 YR 4/4 FINE GRAIN SAND A
W/ MICA FRAGMENTS, 4
MODERATELY COMPACT 6
7.5 YR 5/1 SILT LOAM W1 5* i
ORGANIC MATERIAL a 7
(ROOTIBARK), COMPACT
6
5 YR 4/4 MED GRAINED SAND 8 r
} Wl SMALL AMOUNT OF LEAF
MATERIAL, MODERATELY d;
7 COMPACT (SAND GETS
COARSER AT DEPTH), FEW L?r
MICA FRAGMENTS 9
5 YR 5/1 SILT LOAM W/
ORGANIC MATERIAL (STEMS), 8 1 0
COMPACT
g
11
10
12
7.5 YR 5/1 SILT LOAM, 11
COMPACT 13
p?
12 5 YR 514 CLAYEY SILT, MANY
ORGANIC MATERIAL IN 14
HORIZON, MODERATELY
1 3 COMPACT
ttt 15
14
16
15
/ 17
I
r s
18
5 YR 413 SILTY CLAY, ROOTS 19
W
THROUGHOUT HORIZON,
MODERATELY COMPACT TO
VERY COMPACT 20
0
21
i
22
0
cn 23
m
U) .?
rm- 2
m0
a
10 0?
r?
0
r O
m0
U)
5 YR 4/6 FINE GRAINED SAND
W/ MANY MICA FRAGMENTS,
MODERATELY COMPACT
5 YR 4/6 CLAY SILT W/FEW
MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY
COMPACT, LEAF MATERIAL AT
BOTTOM OF HORIZON
10 YR 516 MED COARSE
GRAINED SAND, MODERATELY
COMPACT
5 YR 6/6 MED GRAINED SAND
W/FEW MICA FRAGMENTS,
SLIGHTLY COMPACT
5 YR 6/6 MED GRAINED SAND
W/FEW PLANT MATERIAL,
COMPACT
5 YR 3/2 SILT W/ ORGANIC
MATERIAL, MODERATELY
COMPACTED
5 YR 3/3 SILT/FINE GRAINED
SAND W/ FEW ORGANIC
MATTER, VERY COMPACTED
5 YR 4/2 W/ 5 YR 616 MOTTLES,
FINE GRAINED SAND W/ SOME
MICA FRAGMENTS, VERY
COMPACT
1
5 YR 5/6 MED GRAINED SAND
1 W/ PLANT MATERIAL,
MODERATELY COMPACT. 2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9 5 YR 5/6 MED GRAINED SAND
MODERATELY COMPACT. 1 0
10
0
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17 10 YR 514 SILT (ORGANIC
MATERIAL PRESENT Q
18
THROUGHOUT THE HORIZON
(ROOTSIPLANT MATERIAL),
1
VERY COMPACT, LEAF ZONE
AT 18.5" 19
19
20
20
21
0

5 YR 314 SILT W/FEW MICA 22
FRAGMENTS, VERY COMPACT
D
cn T
r-_
m0
08 >
O0
r ?
cn _
?n
r0
mG)
cn
SKELLY & LOY, LLP
2928
The N.C. Division of Water Quality Autumn Woods Subdivision WLL Check Number: 2928
Date: 06/29/04 Check Amt: $200.00
Tran 8 Invoice Type Date Reference Balance Discount Pay Amount
?1'FjL9
'
Nps?fo
'104 o? ?R??A
*4P4 00, ?Oov
/)-
SFCT?O
N
~ _ _
,
. ~:~y01~ ;BWLIi~~r~~.,~~~L i = t ~ a.. -
J' P I _
u
_ - '-may- yc
.rs
of --YYs - -
/ ~ ' I
~ \
fl ~ . I ~ a ? ~ / a~
P f' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~
G / a~ ~
- ~ ~ ~ ~j ate'.
- 0 i rt as t ~ ~ a~ !Y-
0 ~ ~ d. ~ ~ : ~ ` NORTH
P / ~ s G S 6 ~
0 CORNER
P ~ 0 G
~ - ~ ~a 0
0 - _ ~ - 4 ~
P 2 ~ _
~ 12 -ar. 11 ~ 11 ~ ~ O -ic-fir. ~2 ~2
~ _ /c /o . ~ k, h~ k~ S 6 ~ ~ o~ o~ O
~ r ~ ~ ~ _.e ~ ~e ~ ~ ~m V
~
UPLAND _ ~ ~j ~ _
a. .j t ~ 'f ~ ~ p~~ 1 ~ fD C\ ` I s Y
- ~ 'k~c ~
/ y ~ ..i ,fiT ~ ~ /
14 ~ ~ is ~c,~
/~P°~ x / ` / ~
1" 0 x / / 6 , ~F v WETLAND B- ~ ~ NOTES C t ,d
~ 1. S / O ~ o ~ ~
/ 25 s r % ~ ~ 1. TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAPPING
I°' 1~, ~ - _-f~.-- ~r --moo = I ~
~ PROVIDED BY LATHAM-WALTERS ~ , ~ ~
/ ~0 7 ~ w, IN . ~ 6 / ENGINEERING, C 1
~ ~ P - - yea c`S F
ire, "'9k-- - _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sP ~ ' 27 w ~ ? ,So s 2A+ % ~ 2. WETLAND DELINEATION, SEDIMENT
- _ ~ s R ~ r MAPPING AND SEDIMENT c I ~ ~
DUTCHMAN S ~a ~ ' 1 12 'a 6 ~
._v , _ ~~i ~ . a CHARACTERIZATION CONDUCTED BY ~k ~ ~ i _ ~ ~ 11 WETLAND E 1 - J ~ ~ awe.: '1
CREEK = `S, 6~ . 8 - _ ° ~ . _ ~ J ~ ~ SKELLY AND LOY, LLP. IN SEPTEMBER 13 r, , b E\
, - , c p s~ / o x ' ~ ° s i ~ ~ '9 ~ 14 AND OCTOBER 18 AND 19 2004 - AND ,
-,.t LD 0 J 1 l~ r ~''F°' 1
a~ > BEAVER - ~ s~ ~ r f I ~6
. ~ ~6' ~ ea 2~ / o f ~ MAPPING COMPILED BY
a s _ ~ ~ ~ 20' ~ P ~o a POND ~ \ / ~i, i r 6 y,~ 1, ~ ~~i6 ~i,6 A1~- \ i , ~ PHOTOGRAMMETRICMETHQDS FROM
1 ~ / - - ' ~ ~ p R _ ~ o AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DATED 515/04 BY
> , ~ I ~ f ~ ~ ~
:z ~ a ~ i o- 1 1 ~ ~ - _ " _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WETLAND D ~ PA ~ i. INDEPENDENT MAPPING COM NY, ~p
~ - p ~ r ~ ' ' i~~ CHARLOTTE, NC.

OLD ~ ;_=mss ~ , ~ ~
~ ~ I % ~ . _ .:....BEAVER 0
- F ~ ~ - i Q ~ ~ 1 ~
1 ~ _ . r DAM P . " - ~ " 1, ~ ~ / 1
0 - ~ / 3 _ Q6 ~ /
p, 1 ; ' 1~, 2 is ~ ~ e /
V , 0 , ~ J 0 1 - ~ l ~ ~ - _ 1
r ~
= ~ ~ S
1 i_ ~ S ' 9G I .---5i~~
LEGEND r~ 20 ~ ~I .A, v rli6
~ I 1 4 _ +n I > 1 r` ~ ~ Cr
~ , / 1 ` , , I - 2 ; l,1
i ~ ~,y ~b-~ SURVEY FLAG POINT 1
! ~ ~ r r ~ ~ _ ~
1 ~ -J ~ r cJ ~ / ~ ' ~ . o, ~ ~
1 - ~ 32`x' ESTIMATED SEDIMENT DEPTH INCHES
. - - - - ~ --fi50~ , ~ SB1 DIKE s5o_ ~ ~ _ ~ wetland delineation stud ~ 2 1a Y
- - i f t ~ ~ i 1
L 'o ~ 36 % 1 _
- 4 WETLAND t ETLAND A i ~ ~ , ~ ~ MEASURED SEDIMENT DEPTH INCHES i _ . s 16 ~ _
, , o r: o I imn hr nztin sed e t c a acte a o
~ o ~ . r _ _ / _ ~ , °650.
i ~ ~ 4 ' ~ L - -s i 1 _ ~ ` b6~-1 ~
~ ' ~ ~ J J ~ ~ - UPLANDS
~ ~ J ,i ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ . - 8 r
/ t v f , ~ r l , 1 _ _ _ ~ ~ WETLAND
~ ~ . ~ _ - - ~ i - . w _ _ g _ << ~ . -
1 ~ P, ~ ' ~ r '
• _ ~ ~ < I i
/ ~s~ f 1 ~ f ~ LIMIT OF SEDIMENT t ~i WET ~M ~---------I LAND SB1 4_
~ _ _ ~ - ~ l .e 1
1 " \ SB1 BASIN _ : - ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ of PHASE II I LIMITS OF WORK _ ~ {
/ ~ ~ m 1
1 o0
- _ ~ ~ PROPERTY LINE
' ~ ~ / 1 J / ~1 / M 1 ~ ! l = _ ~ '
I c ~ ~ n ~ t i }
~ - ~ ~ - DIRECTION OF OVERLAND SURFACE FLOW
f ~ 1 /
~ ~ i. . i/ .6 ~ ~ ~1r Y 1 ~ _ _ t C '
6'` , ~ f _ a ~
p ~ - _ _ - ~ Q. ~h;j` ' -690- - - _ 1, - _ ` - _ - 1
. 1 i + / ~
~ - , AUTUMN WOODS
_ ~ ti ~ t~
y \ ~ r,~ r710~ 1 ~ _ 1 '1 t ,--c . ~ ~ 'I
~ i I~ t ~ / -
~ ~
0 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
/J. 1 ` 1 SUMMARY MAP
1 MT. HOLLY, GASTON COUNTY, NC
SCALE: 1' = 100' DRAWN BY: SSOM SKELLYAND L Y, LLP.
SCALE ENGINEERS-CONSULTANTS
N~ N DATE: 11 /17/04 6404 FALLS OF THE NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 103 CHECKED BY. TRJ NORTH RIDGE BUSINESS PARK - RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
0 50 100 200 (91s)87&3536(e00)N2-6532 FAX [phone]W emaa: ske@[e-mail]
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET No. 2604014 DWG. NO.
~r U