20070478 Ver 1_401 Application_20070307

20070478
~~PY
March 14, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR /Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit p ~~~n~~
1650 Mail Service Center (~ D
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 MQR ~ ~
2007
Reference: Courtesy Copy of PCN Application for Use of NWP #39 OEN
Midland/Saddlebrook Subdivision, Cabarrus County, NC ~TXAND3MpST~R ~Ufir,~Ty
ESP Job #UC23.700 ~~NCH
Dear Ms. Karoly,
On behalf of LandCraft Properties, ESP Associates, P.A. has enclosed a copy of the NWP #39 Application sent
to the USACE, in association with the proposed Midland/Saddlebrook Subdivision in the city of Midland,
Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
Please find attached to this letter the following items:
1) A complete Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application form
2) A vicinity, topographic, soils and jurisdictional features graphic
3) Project site plan showing proposed areas of impacts
4) Project site plan with detailed impact areas and culvert profile
5) USGS topo quad
6) Survey map of jurisdictional `waters of the US'
7) Jurisdictional determination letter with photographs of on-site features
8) National Weather Service precipitation data
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of this proposed project; however notification is not required
because avoidance and minimization of impacts associated with this project have allowed impact quantities to
remain below the notification threshold. Proposed impacts have been minimized to 146.5 linear feet of
intermittent stream for two road crossings. The owner/applicant of this property is LandCraft Properties;
however, ESP Associates, P.A. (ESP) is acting as the authorized agent for the project. ESP performed the
natural resource investigations on the origina140-acre parcel of the Midland/Saddlebrooksfte in May of 2006,
the 66-acre parcel on July 27, and the additional 2.2-acre parcel on November 17. Additionally, an
independent evaluation of the site was conducted by Dr. James Gregory on January 23, 2007. The
jurisdictional delineation verification was conducted between the USACE and ESP on December 5, 2006.
Project Description
The Midland/Saddlebrook Site is being proposed for a single family residential development and is comprised
of three parcels totaling approximately 108 acres (hereinafter referred to as the Site). The Site is located in
Midland, north of and adjacent to Bethel School Road, south of NC Highway 24/27 and west of US Highway
601, in the Town of Midland, Cabarras County, North Carolina. The Site is comprised primarily of forested
areas and is bisected by a powerline transmission corridor. A large single family residential development exists

LandCraft Properties ESP Project # UC23.700
Midland/Saddlebrook Subdivision March l4, 2007
to the west and a single family residential development is currently under construction northwest of the site.
Low density residential housing exists to the south and north and maintained/cleared vacant land exists
adjacent to and east of the site. Sparse single family housing and a fire station are located east of the Site,
along Hwy 601. LandCraft Properties hopes to provide an environmentally sensitive and well-planned
development considering natural resource conservation, enhancement and preservation, while also offering a
reasonable, high-quality, single-family community development.
Jurisdictional Impacts
The proposed project design considers and incorporates the existing natural resource systems and avoids and/or
minimizes impacts to jurisdictional waters where possible. Avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional areas was a
central effort in the many considerations of residential development design. The roads, utility corridors, and
other developmental aspects of the proposed project were all planned after the jurisdictional areas were
thoroughly investigated. The proposed impacts to these jurisdictional areas are necessary in order to provide
access to residential areas within the development. The applicant was able to limit jurisdictional impacts to
146.5 linear feet of intermittent stream. In addition to the use of stormwater BMP's, a considerable amount of
natural and/or jurisdictional area will remain undisturbed at the back portion of lots and/or within amenities.
Mitigation
These impact quantities are within NWP #39 thresholds of 0.5 acres of wetlands and 3001f of perennial stream
and also remain below the thresholds for NCDWQ written concurrence, which are 0.10 acres of wetlands and
1501f of intermittent or perennial. The 108-acre Midland/Saddlebrook Subdivision has been designed to avoid
and minimize the impacts to waters of the U.S. on-Site through a careful planning process. Proposed
compensation consists of the avoidance of a majority of jurisdictional areas, minimization of impacts to the
maximum extent possible, and preservation of riparian buffers along the remaining jurisdictional waters.
These preservation areas will act as a natural filter for runoff associated with the development, compensate for
any minimal water quality impacts to downstream waters, provide adequate wildlife habitat, and compliment
and enhance the residential community.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions regarding the information we have provided. We welcome any
opportunity to discuss the project further, in person or otherwise. Thank you for your time and consideration,
and we look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
ESP Associates, P.A.

Renee Gallimore Adam V. McIntyre
Natural Resource Scientist Natural Resources Department Manager

20070478
Office Use Only' Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to ttus project, please enter ._i~ot t~ppncaoic ur ~~~h .~
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?^
II. Applicant Information ~ ~ W ~ ~ " ~ D
Owner/Applicant Information
MAR 1 6 2007
Name: Landcraft ..- ...---- ~ ~*~
ut~r< ..,,, ~.. ^,
Mailing Address: Attn: Mr. Matthew Wilson y~~N,~p~p~,IWATERBRANGi
1435 West Morehead Street Suite 135
Charlotte NC 28208
Telephone Number: 704-343-9885
E-mail Address:
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: Renee Gallimore
Company Affiliation: ESP Associates PA
Mailing Address: 3475 Lakemont Blvd.
Fort Mill SC 29708
Telephone Number:_(803) 802-2440 Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: r allimore espassociates tom
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 13

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: Midland/Saddlebrook Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Numbers (Tax PIN): 5544767296, 5544964955, 5544851530
4. Location
County: Cabarrus Nearest Town: Midland
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Saddlebrook
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): off of Bethel School Road,
south of SC Highway 24/27 and west of US Hi way 601, in the Town of Midland
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.2397 N 80.5152 W
6. Property size (acres):
108
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT Muddy_Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin
(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: Land use within the site is primarily forested arealwoodland
w/a transmission/powerline corridor bisecting the site. A single family residential
development exists to the west and a development is in ~ro~ress to the northwest; low
density residential housing exists to the south and north• and maintained/cleared vacant land
exists adjacent to and east of the site. Sparse single family housing and a fire station are
Page 6 of 13

located along Hwy 601 which is east of the site. Four jurisdictional wetland features, two
streams and one pond were identified on the site.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed use for the property is the development of a single family residential community.
Typical land development/construction equipment will be used including mechanized
excavation and rg ading equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
The specific goals for the Saddlebrook development are to create a high quality residential real
estate project that enhances the market value of the~roperty in an environmentally sensitive and
well-planned manner The proposed impacts to~urisdictional areas are necessary in order to
provide access to residential areas within the development Impacts to jurisdictional areas have
been avoided and/or minimized where possible.
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.
No permits have been issued and prior impacts have not occurred for this project. A
jurisdictional determination site visit was conducted by Mr. Steve Lund on December 5, 2006.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permits or additional impacts are effected with this proiect
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 7 of 13

wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
Construction of road crossings for the purpose of accommodating access to other residential
areas.
Impact Area 1 • Impacts include placement of clean earthen fill and installation of a 24" culvert
for a residential road crossing of 73 linear feet of intermittent stream.
Impact Area 2• Impacts include~lacement of clean earthen fill and installation of a 30" culvert
for a residential road crossing of 73.5 linear feet of intermittent stream.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Area Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) n/a
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property
n/a
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Perennial o Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact ~
Intermittent Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on map) . Before Im act (linear feet) (acres)
Earthen fill
1 UT to Muddy w/culvert, rip rap, Intermittent, 3 73 0.005
Creek & retaining wall Unimportant
( ermanent
Earthen fill

2 UT to Muddy w/culvert, rip rap, Intermittent,
4
73.5
0.007
Creek & retaining wall Unimportant
(permanent)

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 146.5 0.012
Page 8 of 13

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number Name of Waterbody
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Area of
Impact
(indicate on ma) (if applicable) ocean, etc. (acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) n/a
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.012
Wetland Impact (acres): n/a
Open Water Impact (acres): n~a
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.012
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 146.5
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
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 maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
Page 9 of 13

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 stream crossings at Areas 1 and 2 are necessary to allow access to residential areas
within the development while allowing the maximum utilization of property area. Stream
crossings and associated impacts have been minimized and/or reduced to stay within NW
permit thresholds and all wetlands and the maLority of streams have been avoided. Also, a
considerable amount of natural area will remain undisturbed at the back portion of lots and/or
within amenities.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
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.
The proposed project designn considers and incorporates the existing stream systems and
avoids and/or minimizes impacts to jurisdictional waters where possible. Impacts are within
NW permit thresholds and therefore mitigation requirements are not expected for this
Page 10 of 13

project. The development proposes the preservation of existing vegetation along the
jurisdictional features (except in those areas designated for impacts).
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No X
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No X
Page 11 of 13

2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact Required
Zone , ~..~_o a o.~ Multiplier ,~,~;,;,,,,,;,,,,
Total
n/a
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
For the protection of on-site and downstream resources, most of the vegetative buffer will be
preserved and/or restored along_iurisdictional and natural areas within the site. The use of
Stormwater BMP's are proposed to treat on-site Stormwater and improve overall water quality.
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No X
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No X
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No X
Page 12 of 13

• r
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
No additional development is anticipated within or adjacent to the property.
XV. 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).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13

2 0 0 7 0 4 7 8
~DU~~
~~Pl~
March 14, 2007
Mr. Steve Lund
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Reference: Midland/Saddlebrook Site
Cabarrus County, NC
ESP Project No. UC23.700
Dear Mr. Lund:
0 ~~~Q
V~'
MgR162
X07
Of1yR ` ~,q
"~'~os,~,o~~r,.l,
The Midland/Saddlebrook property (hereinafter referred to as the Site) is being proposed for the
development of a residential subdivision and is comprised of 3 parcels totaling approximately
108 acres. The Site is located north of Bethel School Road, south of NC Highway 24/27 and
west of US Highway 601, in the town of Midland, North Carolina.
ESP was tasked to review the Midland/Saddlebrook property for natural resource issues
including but not limited to the presence of wetlands, streams, and threatened and endangered
species habitat. Natural resource investigations were performed on the original 40-acre parcel of
the Midland/Saddlebrook site in May of 2006, the 66-acre parcel on July 27, and the additional
2.2-acre parcel on November 17. A jurisdictional delineation verification was conducted on the
entire Site by Mr. Steve Lund (USAGE), Renee Gallimore and Nick Garner of ESP on December
5, 2006.
Natural Resource Investigation Results & Jurisdictional Determination
Numerous streams and/or wetlands were identified and delineated within the original 40-acre
parcel during Site investigations conducted in May of 2006 (Figure 4). In July of 2006, ESP
conducted a Site investigation of the 66-acre parcel and determined that the drainage feature
located within this parcel is not jurisdictional, based on the criteria outlined in the 1987 USAGE
Wetland Delineation Manual and utilizing NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms. The drainage
feature in question apparently originates as a seep from a small off-Site farm pond located north
of the Site and continues southeast through the small, forested valley until reaching the
cleared/maintained field, located off-Site and east of the property.
During our site investigation on July 27, 2006, no water was observed and heavy leaf litter was
present along the entire system. The upper reach of this system exhibited absent to very weak
geomorphologic characteristics, with some geomorphologic characteristics gradually becoming
,_. ,~,~ > >~, .astr ~ ,~ ~ ~ r.~- __ ._

Jurisdictional Determination
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
ESP Project #UC23.700
March 14, ?007
weak in the upper middle and middle reaches of the system. Further downslope, characteristics
such as bed and bank, depositional bars/benches and grade control become more defined, but still
would be considered as weak to moderate. Headcuts, substrate sorting and riffle/pool complexes
were absent along this entire reach. Towards the lower limits of the system, geomorphologic
characteristics gradually returned to weak. This drainage feature connects to a ditch in the
cleared/maintained field located off-Site and east of the property. This off-Site ditch was
characterized by absent geomorphologic, hydrologic and biological characteristics, with thick
fibrous roots, grass and plants within the channel. The ditch continues for several hundred feet
without exhibiting any jurisdictional characteristics or connection to the system in question.
Because this feature lacks intermittent stream characteristics and is downstream of the site
indicates that the entire system only responds to stormwater flow. Additionally, approximately 5
inches of rainfall was recorded within 7 days prior to our site investigation and over twice the
average rainfall was recorded for the month of June; however, the system showed little to no
evidence of consistent flow during our site investigation.
During our jurisdictional verification meeting conducted on December 5, 2006, hydrologic
characteristics throughout the entire system were classified as absent to weak, with a couple
areas along the system exhibiting moderate flow and/or pools of standing water. The upper
reach of this system exhibited very weak to absent flow and gradually became weak towards the
upper middle and middle reaches of the system. Isopods were identified in two pools along this
reach, but no species of intermittent or perennial macrobenthos indicators were observed.
Further downstream, flow was weak to moderate in some areas, wrack lines were few and
sediment on plants was weakly apparent. It should be noted that this area experienced a rain
event within 72 hours prior to our site visit. Additionally, a significant increase in rainfall was
recorded for the months preceding this Site visit and almost twice the average rainfall was
recorded for the month of November. A total of 32.73 inches of rain was recorded by the
National Weather Service Forecast Office from June through November 2006, compared to the
average of 21.78 inches for that same time period.
Due to the outcome of the jurisdictional verification meeting, our client decided to have an
independent evaluation of the feature performed. They decided to hire Dr. James Gregory,
Assistant Professor of Forestry, North Carolina State University and Professional Wetland
Scientist. Dr. Gregory has over 25 years of experience and research relating to watershed and
forest hydrology and stream identification, and has assisted the NCDWQ with the development
of their stream identification process (resume attached). A thorough investigation of the feature
in question was conducted by Dr. Gregory on January 23, 2007. Despite more than 1 inch of
rainfall within 48 hours prior to the Site visit and active discharge from the overflow pipe of the
upstream pond, his findings revealed a perched saturated zone at a depth of approximately 26
inches about 8 inches thick with an unsaturated horizon below, indicating that the hydrology
observed in the system during the Site investigation was a result of precipitation and not
groundwater sources. Therefore, according to Dr. Gregory's assessment, this system does not
meet the USACE's definition of an intermittent stream, due to the fact that it is precipitation
dependent (report attached).
Summary & Conclusions
Stream characteristics are typically more developed and/or prominent as you move further
downstream, as hydrologic inputs accumulate from the watershed. However, although some
2

M
Jurisdictional Determination ESP Project #LJC23.700
Midland~'Saddlebrcx>k Site March 14, 2007
weak to moderate geomorphologic characteristics are present along the length of the system,
these characteristics are inconsistent, indicating the lack of consistent flow. Additionally, no
groundwater or flow was observed during our Site investigation on July 27, 2006, and heavy leaf
litter was present along the entire system, indicating an inconsistent and insufficient hydrologic
input to the system during the growing season. Consequently, it appears that the on-Site feature
does not receive enough flow to allow the development of an intermittent channel, and the
current pools are probably an indication of storm events. It is our determination that the
hydrology observed during our December and January Site visits was the result of above-average
rainfall during the month and/or days prior to our Site visits, the composition of on-Site soils
which are heavy in clay content (which restricts infiltration), and the contribution of water
overflowing/discharging from the off-Site pond. According to Dr. Gregory's assessment, this
system is defined by a perched clay layer at approximately 26 inches in depth that allows
substantial retention of water during and following rain events. Therefore, based on the evidence
acquired as a result of numerous site investigations, the opinions offered by Dr. Gregory,
NCDWQ criteria for stream identification, and the USACE's current definition of intermittent
streams as it relates to the requirement of hydrologic input from groundwater sources, it is our
professional opinion that the feature within the 66-acre parcel of this Site is not jurisdictional.
Included with this letter please find NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms, rainfall data, photos
of on-Site features from our July, and January Site visits, and the conclusions of an independent
evaluation of the Site conducted by Dr. James Gregory.
We appreciate your review of this site and the information we have provided. If you have any
questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call Adam McIntyre at (919)
678-1071 or myself, at [phone].
Sincerely,
ESP Associates, P.A.
Renee Gallimore
Natural Resource Scientist
Adam V McIntyre
Natural Resources Department Manager
3

20070478
Site Visit Report
To
ESP Associates, P.A., Cary, NC
Saddlebrook Project
Midland, NC
James D. Gregory CPSS, PWS, Ph.D.
PrincipaUSenior Scientist
Watershed Hydrology Consultants LLC
Raleigh, NC
March 7, 2007
Introduction
On January 23, 2007 I visited the proposed site of the Saddlebrook residential
development located west of Highway 601 and a short distance north of the town of Midland,
NC. At the request of Adam V. McIntyre of ESP Associates and accompanied by McIntyre and
Rene Gallimore of ESP Associates, I conducted an independent assessment of saturated soil and
channel features on the site. The purpose of that assessment was to ascertain whether those
features met U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality definitions and
criteria for wetlands and streams subject to the permitting requirements of Sections 404 and 401
of the Clean Water Act.
The dominant soil unit on the area examined is Misenheimer channery silt loam, a very
shallow soil over bedrock that may have short periods of perched soil saturation in the winter
with high rainfall and low evapotranspiration rates (Loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic,
shallow Aquic Dystrudepts, series description attached). The features in question include: (1) an
area in a broad shallow valley down slope of a small pond (outside northern boundary of the
project site) with saturated soil at the surface and disbursed overland flow, indicating significant
seepage through the pond dam, (2) a channel on the western edge of the valley that was receiving
flow from feature 1, (3) a channel a short distance to the east of feature 2 that was receiving flow
from feature 1, (4) a channel formed by the confluence of features 2 and 3, and (5) a downstream
segment of feature 4 through an open field with fescue turf that had been modified to fill and
gently slope the channel to provide ease of mowing across it.
Results of the Assessment
I examined the soil profile to the maximum depth of coring (about 32-35 inches) with a
Dutch auger at three locations in residual profiles a short distance away from the channel
features. There was a perched saturated zone that began at an average depth of about 26 inches
and averaged about 8 inches thick. The Cr horizon material below that zone was unsaturated, in
fact barely moist. Those hydrologic conditions on the site indicate that the water in the saturated
soil areas and the water flowing in the channels was being discharged from the upstream pond

and from the near surface perched saturated zone and not from a regional groundwater zone.
Rainfall has been much higher than normal in the region during the last four months. A total of
16.85 inches of rain was recorded at Charlotte Douglas Airport during September-December,
2006 compared to the normal total of 14.01 inches for that time period.
Neither of the channel features 2-5 are shown on the soils map of the Cabarrus County
Soil Survey (Stephens 1988) (copy attached). One intermittent stream is depicted on the USGS
1:24,000 scale topographic map in the vicinity of the channel features on the site (copy attached.)
Feature 1. The vegetation indicates that there may be a small area of jurisdictional
wetland downstream of the pond dam. Examining the soil at several locations revealed some
evidence of soil reduction but only one spot barely met hydric soil criteria.
Feature 2. I conducted an assessment at one location in this channel feature using the
NC Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Methodology (ESP Stream Point 4, form
attached) and recorded a total of 20 points. Under normal rainfall conditions with lower flow
volumes and shorter duration of flow, the score would very likely have been less than 19. The
channel is dominated by erosional processes and has none of the depositional features expected
in an intermittent stream.
Feature 3. This channel feature has a relatively straight channel with uniform cross-
section that indicates its origin was possibly a very old drainage ditch. This channel scored 17.5
points on the NCDWQ stream identification method (ESP Stream Point 1, form attached.) The
channel is dominated by erosional processes and has none of the depositional features expected
in an intermittent stream.
Feature 4. I did not conduct a complete assessment of this feature. However, it has a
better developed channel than features 2 and 3 and some incipient depositional features.
Feature 5. This channel segment has undergone historic extensive modification in the
process of developing the pasture in which it occurs. The channel is very shallow with very low
gradient side slopes and has dense continuous fescue turf throughout the channel. No normal
features of an intermittent stream have been re-established in the channel. There is no ordinary
high water mark in this channel. Thus, features 1-4 are isolated from the stream downstream of
feature 5 by a channel segment that is not a water of the U.S.
Literature Cited
Stephens, Ronald B. 1988. Soil Survey of Cabarrus County, North Carolina. USDA Soil
Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
2

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: ~~~-p'~ Protect: ~s Latitude:
Evaluator. ~ Site: ~~ ~,~,~ ~~ Longitude:
7otai Points: Other
Stream Is of least lots ' errt ~' Caunty:
if x 19 ar erennle! Ka 30 e.g. Qaad Name:
A. Geomo holo subtotal = ~ .s '~ r~~b$e~t, t~'`~ , r'?r „_eaic „E ~`;,~ '~~I11I;iaiter~t~;~ s:'`~fron~.
1°. Gontfnuous bed and bank 0 1 2 M=~""
2. Sinuosity 0 ~ 2 3
3. In-channel structure: rifrls-pool sequence 0 (~ 2 3
4. Soli texture ar stream substrate so.rfing 0 2 3
6. Active/relic tloadplaln 0 2 3
6. Lleposltional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Htaldad channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de assts 1 2 3
9 ° Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Naturel valley or dralnagewa 0 . 1 i.5
13. Second or greater oMer channel one self .
USGS ar NRCS map or athar documented
evidence.
i~ -~~
Yes = a
'
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see discusafans in manual
R Nvrirnlnnv tCi ihfntal = ~ . S 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, ,a1 ~
Water In channel -- d or rowln season b 1 ~ 3 ,
1 t3. Leafllttar 1.5 1 ~ 0
17..Sediment do lams or debris 0 0.5 1
18.Organic debris Ilnes or piles (Wrack Ilnes 0 1 1.5
19. Hydrlc soils n:doxlmo hicfsatures present? No = Yes = 1.6
C• Binlaav (Subtotal = a~• s~ 1 ~ r.
20 . Fibrous roots In channel 3 2 ; .~. 1
21 .Rooted plants In channel 3 ;~~~. '='` 1 ~ 0
22. Crayfish ~;` 0.5 1 1.5
23. B{valves 1 2 ~ 3
24. Flsh 0.6 1 ~ 1.5
25. Am hlblans 0.5 i ~ 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (Hate diverally and abundance) 0 1 ' 1.5
27. FIIamQntous algae; erlph an 0 2 3
28.•Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus. 0.6 1 .1:5
29 .Wetland lams !n streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other ~QO
Hems zo ano z~ focus on ure presence of uplana plants, aem la focuses on one presence or aquasa or weuana pianls.
Notes: (use back side of this farm tar eddltional notes.) 5katch:
~~~
-~ -~ ~ P/
~~ ~1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Farm; Version 3.'I

late: „~~ ~ Project: JS ~ Latitude:
J
Evaluator: ~ 6 Site: C~~ ! ~- Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Sfn3amisatieastMtermitlenf County: e.g. QuadNama•
!f a 19 or erennla! Uz 30
A. Geomo hold Subtotal = f!d . S :"',Ah' en.t'"~r,
~:t...~..... ~::~• +~;~~~ `v-'-'
,;:Wealtk , :;~€ „~ : ="
::s Moderatai;:
f~;!;j~~~rAng~r~r
1 °. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 r 3
2. 5lnuosiry 0 1 ~ 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- of se uence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture pr stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Acllve/rella ilaodplaln 0 2 3
8. Repositlana! bars or henches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 Z 3
t3. Recent alluvia! deposits 0 2 3
9 ° Nature) levees (fg 1 2 3
10. Haadcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls ~~° 0 0.6 1.5
12. Natural valley or dralnageway 0 0. 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on exist{na
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
N~
Yes = 3
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see/disoussinns in manual
R 4-Ivrlrnlnnv /Ri~htnfal a / 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water In channel and > 4B hra since~refn, or
Water !n channel - d or rowln season 0 1 (2, 3 ,
1 ti. Leaflitter 1,5 1 CD
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18, Organic debris Imes or Iles {1Nrack Imes) 0 0.5 1
19. Hydrlc soils redoximo hlc features) resent? . Na 0 Yes =1:5
C. Ftioloev fSuhtntal= r~%,~ 1 •
20 . Flbrous mats In channel 3 2 1
21 .Rooted plants In channel 3 2 0
22. Cra sh 0.5 1 1.6
23. Bivalves 1 '2 3
24. Fish ~ 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
28. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 ~ 2' 3
28. Iran axldWng bacterialtungus. 0 1::: 1.5
29 .Wetland plants In atreambed FAC = .5 FACW = 0.75; OBL = i.6 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
;!
'llama 2Q anC 21 ioaus an the presence of upland plants, Item 29 txuses on me presence or equana or weuana p~ancs.
Sketch: `~
~ t ~f~~
Notes: (use beak side of This form tar additional Hates.) ti l
3~ r ~~s~~ - /r` ~.-~'"~- ,~~' -~,?a;f ' ,~.~ ~4. rte.. f
' T a
~ f -~ a ~-

2 0 0 7 0 4 7 8
North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 7/27/2006 Project: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG/RG Site: data point #1 Longitude:
Total Points: 10
Stream is at least intermittent
if ?19 or erennial if >_30 County: Cabarras County Other
Midland uad
Signature•
A. Geomor holo Subtotal= 7 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Stron (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank 2
2) Sinuosity t
3) In-channel: riffle- of sequence t
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1
5) Active/relic flood lain o
6) Depositional bars or benches t
7) Braided channels ~
8) Recent alluvial deposits 0
9)' Natural levees o
10) Headcuts ~
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Strong (1.5)
11) Grade controls o.5
12) Natural valley and draina eway o.5
13) Second or eater order channel on existing No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. A drolo Subtotal= 0 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Stron (3)
14) Groundwater flow/discharge 0
15) Water in channel and>48 hours since rain, or 0
Water in channel--dry or growin season
Absent (LS) Weak (1) Moderate (0.5 Strong (0)
16) Leaflitter 0
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Strong (1.5)
17) Sediment on lants 0
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0
19) Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
C. Biolo Subtotal= 3 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(1) Strong(0)
20)bFibrous roots in channel ~
21)b Rooted plants in channel 2
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Strong(1.5)
22) Crayfish 0
Absent(0) Weak(1) Moderate(2) Stron (3)
23) Bivalves 0
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Strong(1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Amphibians 0
26) Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
27) Filamentous al ae; periphyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0
FAC(0.5) FACW(0.75) OBL(LS) SAV(2.0) Other(0)
29)h Wetland plants in streambed 0
b Items 30 and ?l foxes on the presence of upland plants, item 39 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
TOTAL POINTS= to
(ICGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Notes: (use the back of this form for additional notes)
Photos taken data location close to open fieltl in the lower section of the drainage' vegetation composed primarily of upland species throughout this area

LandCraft Properties
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
F.SP Project #UC23.700
July 27, 2006
Lower limits of system -close to open field
(features exhibit little or no geomorphologic, hydrologic or biologic characteristics)
Photos taken during July 27, 2006 site visit
,~w
~. , ~. ,.
~....~
. ,~ ..
~ sr ~.seb~a. LA.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 7/27/2006 Project: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG/RG Site: data point #2 Longitude:
Total Points: 14
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_] 9 or perennial if ~0 County: Cabarras County Other
Midland uad
Signatu
A. Geomor h010 Subtotal= 11 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Stron (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank 3
2) Sinuosity 1
3) In-channel: riffle- of se uence 1
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 1
5) Active/relic floodplain
6) De sitional bars or benches 1
7) Braided channels o
8) Recent alluvial deposits o
9)' Natural levees o
10) Headcuts
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Stron (l.5
11) Grade controls 1
12) Natural valley and drainageway t
13) Second or reater order channel on existing No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence
" Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 0 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
14) Groundwater flow/discharge 0
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel--d or growin season 0
Absent (1.5) Weak (1) Moderate (0.5 Stron (0)
16) Leaflitter 0
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Strong (1.5)
17) Sediment on lants 0
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0
19) Hydric soils (redoximo hic features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
C. Biolo Subtotal= 3 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(1) Strong(0)
20)bFibrousrootsin channel 1
21)e Rooted lants in channel 2
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Stron (1.5)
22) Crayfish 0
Absent(0) Weak(1) Moderate(2) Strong(3)
23) Bivalves 0
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Strong(1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Am hibians 0
26) Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
27) Filamentous al ae; eri hyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0
FAC(0.5) FACW(0.75) OBL(1.5) SAV(2.0) Other(0)
29)" Wetland plants in streambed 0
n hems ?0 nnrl 27 Earns on the presence of upland plaurs, item ?9 focuses on the presence of ayualic or wcdnnrl plnnrs
TOTAL POINTS = 14
(I(Grealer Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Slream Is At Least Intermittent)
Notes.
Data location approximately mid-way up the tlrainage (half-way between open field and pond at top of system) on west side of feature

North Carolina Division of Water Oualitv-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 7/27/2006 Project: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG/RG Site: data point #3 Longitude:
Total Points: 12.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if ?19 or erennial if >_30 County: Cabarras County Other
Midland uad
Signature:
A. GeomOr bolo Subtotal= 9.5 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank 3
2) Sinuosity I
3) In-channel: riffle-pool se uence I
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sorting I
5) Active/relic flood lain I
6) De sitional bars or benches I
7) Braided channels o
8) Recent alluvial de sits o
9)' Natural levees 0
10) Headcuts o
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Stron (1.5)
11) Grade controls t
12) Natural valley and drainageway o.s
13) Second or realer order channel on existin No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence
Mnn-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 0 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
14) Groundwater flow/dischar e 0
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel--dry or rowin season 0
Absent (1.5) Weak (1) Moderate (0.5 Stron (0)
16) Leaflitter 0
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Strong (1.5
17) Sediment on ]ants 0
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0
19) Hydric soils (redoximo hic features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3 =
C. Biolo Subtotal= 3 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(]) Strong 0
20)°Fibrous roots in channel 1
21)b Rooted plants in channel 2
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(]) Strong(1.5)
22) Crayfish 0
Absent(0) Weak(]) Moderate(2) Strong(3)
23) Bivalves 0
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(]) Strong(1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Am hibians 0
26) Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
27) Filamentous al ae; ri hyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0
FAC(0.5) FACW(0.75) OBL(1.5) SAV(2.0) Other(0)
29)" Wetland ]ants in streambed 0
~ Gems 1a nnrl ?l focus on the presence of upland p/nnrs, item ?9 focuses on the presence of nqualic or wedanrl p/nnrs
TOTAL POINTS= 12.5
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittenq
Notes:
Data location approximately mid-way up the drainage (half-way between open feld and pond at top of system) on east side of feature

North Carolina Division of Water Ouality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 7/27/2006 Project: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG/RG Site: data point #4 Longitude:
Total Points: 8.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_l9 or perennial if ~0 County: Cabarras County Other
Midland uad
Signature:
A. Geomor holo Subtotal= 3.5 Absent (o) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank o
2) Sinuosity I
3) In-channel: riffle- of se uence o
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0
5) Active/relic floodplain o
6) De ositional bars or benches o
7) Braided channels 2
8) Recent alluvial deposits 0
9)' Natural levees o
10) Headcuts o
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Stron (1.5)
11) Grade controls 0
12) Natural valley and drains eway o.5
13) Second or eater order channel on existin No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence
Mnn-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 3 Absent (o) Weak (1) Moderate 2) Stron (3)
14) Groundwater flow/discharge 0
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or
Water in channel--dry or growing season 0
Absent (1.5) Weak (1) Moderate (0.5 Stron (0)
16) Leaflitter 0
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Strong (1.5)
17) Sediment on lants 0
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0
19) Hydric soils (redoximo hie features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3)= 3
C. Blolo Subtotal= 2 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(1) Strong(0)
20)bFibrousrootsin channel 1
21)b Rooted plants in channel 1
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Stron (1.5)
22) Crayfish 0
Absent(0) Weak(1) Moderate(2) Strong(3)
23) Bivalves 0
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Stron (1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Am hibians 0
26) Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
27) Filamentous al ae; peri hyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0
FAC(0.5) FACW(0.75) OBL(1.5) SAV(2.0) Other(0)
29)b Wetland plants in streambed 0
b hems ?0 and ?I focus an the presence ojuplanrl plnnrs, item ?9 focuses on the presence of nr/vatic or wrdrtnrl plnnrs
TOTAL POINTS = 8.5
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is Al Least Intermittent)
Notes:
Data location just downstream of pond; vegetation composed primarily of upland Species throughout this area

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 12/6/2006 Project: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG Site: Stream Point # 1 Longitude:
Total Points: 18
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_19 or perennial if ~0 County: Cabanas County Other
e. .Quad Name:
Signature:
A. GeOmor bolo Subtotal= 7 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank 2
2) Sinuosity I
3) In-channel: riffle-pool se uence t
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sorting o
5) Active/relic floodplain o
6) Des ositional bars or benches t
7) Braided channels o
8) Recent alluvial de sits o
9)' Natural levees 0
10) Headcuts o
Absent (0) Weak (0.5) Moderate (1) Stron (1.5)
11) Grade controls t
12) Natural valley and drama eway t
13) Second or realer order channel on existin No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence
° 1LInn-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 5.5 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Stron (3)
14) Groundwater flow/discharge 1
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or 2
Water in channel--dry or growing season
_..
Absent (1.5)
Weak (1)
Moderate (0.5
Stron (0)
1G) Leallitter 0.5
;:.>;
,. :. ;.
Absent (0)
Weak (0.5)
Moderate (1)
Strong (1.5)
17) Sediment on lants 1
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) I
19) Hydric soils (redoximo hic features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
C. Bi01o Subtotal= 5.5 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(1) Stron (0)
20)bFibrous roots in channel 2
21)b Rooted plants in channel 2
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Stron (1.5)
22) Crayfish 0
Absent(0) Weak(1) Moderate(2) Strong(3)
23) Bivalves 0
'' Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Strong(1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Am hibians 0
26) Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27) Filamentous algae; peri hyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0.5
FAC(0.5) FACW(OJS) OBL(1.5) SAV(2.0) Other(0)
29)" Wetland plants in streambed 0
~ hems 20 nnrl 2l joats on the presence of uplmrd plmus, item ?9 focuses on the presence of aquatic ar wetlnnrl plnrus
TOTAL POINTS= 18
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Notes: (use the back of this form for additional notes)
Photo t-6 refer to this location. Macrobenthos found consisted of isopods and scuds

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 12/6/2006 Pro'ect: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG Site: Stream Point #2 Longitude:
Total Points: 17
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_l9 or perennial if >_30 County: Cabanas County Other
e. .Quad Name:
Signature:
A. Geomor holo Subtotal= 6 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank 2
2) Sinuosity I
3) In-channel: riffle-pool se uence 1
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sorting o
5) Active/relic floodplain o
6) Des sitional bars or benches I
7) Braided channels o
8) Recent alluvial de osits 0
9)' Natural levees o
10) Headcuts o
_.
;:! "''. ;.:`
Absent (0)
Weak (0.5)
Moderate (1)
Stron (1.5)
11) Grade controls o.5
12) Natural valley and drainageway 0.5
13) Second or realer order channel on existin No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence
" Man-made ditches are not rated; see c(iscussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 5.5 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
14) Groundwater flow/discharge 1
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or 2
Water in channel--dry or rowin season
__ _..
Absent (LS)
Weak (1)
Moderate (0.5
Strong (0)
16) Leaflitter 0.5
_..
Absent (0)
Weak (0.5)
Moderate (1)
Strong (1.5)
17) Sediment on plants 1
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1
19) Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
C. Biolo Subtotal= 5.5 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate 1) Strong(0)
20)bFibrous roots in channel 2
21)b Rooted plants in channel 3
Abseat(0 Weak .5 Moderate(1) Stron (l.5
22) Crayfish 0
Absent(0) Weak(1) Moderate(2) Stron (3)
23) Bivalves 0
___
____

Absent(0)

Weak(.5)

Moderate(1)

Strong(1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Am hibians 0
26) Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0.5
27) Filamentous al ae; periphyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0
FAC(0.5) FACW(0.75) OBL(1.5) SAV(2.0) Other(0)
29)h Wetland plants in streambed 0
6ltems ?0 m+rl 2l fours mr the presenrr of uplnnrl plnnts, item ?9 focuses ott the presence of nquulic ar wedanrl pluttls
TOTAL PO/NTS = 17
(ICGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is Al Least Imermittent)
Notes: (use the back of this form for additional notes)
Photo 7-10/macrobenthis included scuds and isopods/This point is located near the field in the lower section of the drainage

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 12/6/2006 Project: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG Site: Stream Point #3 Longitude:
Total Points: 16
Stream is at least intermittent
if ?19 or erennial if >_30 County: Cabanas County Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Signature:
A. Geomor bolo Subtotal= 5 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank 2
2) Sinuosity t
3) In-channel: riffle-pool sequence o
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sortin g
5) Active/relic floodplain o
6) Despositional bars or benches t
7) Braided channels ~
8) Recent alluvial deposits o
9)' Natural levees g
10) Headcuts ~
'' ~~~ ~° '' ~' ~
_ ..::..::::.....::::::............._:::::.. ___::::.: Absent (0) Weak(0.5) Moderate (1) Strong(1.5)

I1) Grade controls 0.5
12) Natural valley and drainageway 0.5
13) Second or greater order channel on existing No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 7 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
14) Groundwater flow/discharge ~
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or 2
Water in channel--dry or growing season
~~ "" ~"' "' Absent (1.5) Weak (1) Moderate (0.5 Stron (0)
16) Le~llitter 1
_ __
,:

Absent (0)

Weak (0.5)

Moderate (1)

Strong (1.5)
17) Sediment on plants 0.5
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) l
19) Hydric soils (redoximotphic features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3)= 1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal= 4 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(1) Stron (0)
20)bFibrous roots in channel ~
21)° Rooted plants in channel 2
Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Strong(1.5)
22) C`raytish 0

~ Absent(0) Weak(1) Moderate(2) Strong(3)
23) Bivalves 0

_,, Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Strong(1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Amphibians 0
26) Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5
27) Filamentous algae; peri hyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0.5

''
_ _
FAC(0.5)
FACW(0.75)
OBL(1.5)
SAV(2.0)
Other(0)
__
29)b Wetland plants in streambed 0
6 Uems 20 and ?! focus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of n9uatic ar wetland plants
TOTAL POINTS = 16
(ICGrea[er Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is A[ Lead Intermittent)
Notes. (use the back of this form for additional notes)
Photo 11-t6/Point located along the lower section of the smaller drainage near larger drainage

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 12/6/2006 Project: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG Site: Stream Point #4 Lon nude:
Total Points: 13
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_19 or perennial if ?30 County: Cabarras County Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Signature:
A. GeOmor hol0 Subtotal= 4 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank t
2) Sinuosity t
3) In-channel: riffle-pool sequence o
4) Soil texture or stream substrate sorting o
5) Active/relic floodplain t
6) Despositional bars or benches ~
7) Braided channels o
8) Recent alluvial de osits ~
9)' Natural levees o
10) Headcuts o
__ :. __ _ ,
Absent (0)
Weak (0.5)
Moderate (1)
Strong (1.5)
11) Grade controls o.5
12) Natural valley and drainageway o.5
13) Second or greater order channel on existing No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence
Man-made ditches are not rnted; see discussions in manual
B. H dr010 Subtotal= 4 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Stron (3)
14) Groundwater flow/discharge ~
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or ~
Water in channel--dry or growing season
_.
;: ,.
-:

bsent (1.5)

eak (1)

oderate (0.5

tron ( )
16) Le3flitter 0.5
;;
Absent (0)
Weak (0.5)
Moderate (1)
Strong (1.5)
17) Sediment on plants 0.5
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1
19) Hydric soils (redoximotphic features) present? No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
C. Biolo Subtotal= 5 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(1) Strong(0)
20)bFibrous roots in channel 2
21)e Rooted lants in channel 2
__
Absent(0)
Weak(.5)
Moderate(1)
Strong(1.5)
22) C'ravfish 0
__ _ _...
Absent(0)
Weak(1)
Moderate(2)
Strong(3)
23) i3i~ah-e5 0
..:.., ss; .... Absent(0) Weak(.5) Moderate(1) Strong(1.5)
24) Fish 0
25) Amphibians 0
26) Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0.5
27) Filamentous algae; eriphyton 0.5
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0
? FAC(0.5) FACW(0.75) OBL(1.5) SAV(2.0) Other(0)
29)° Wetland plants in streambed 0
b Lems ?0 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item 39 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland nlattls
TOTAL POINTS = 13
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The S[ream Is Al Least Intermittent)
Notes: (use the back of this form for additional notes)
Photo 17-21/Located in the upper section of the smaller drainage

North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: 12/6/2006 Pro'ect: Midland/Saddlebrook Latitude:
Evaluator: NLG Site: Stream Point #5 Lon itude:
Total Points: 17.5
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_19 or perennial if ~0 County: Cabarras County Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Signatu
A. Geomor hold Subtotal= 5.5 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
1)' Continous bed and bank 1
2) Sinuosity 1
3) In-channel: riffle- of se uence 0
4 Soil texture or stream substrate sorting o
5) Active/relic floodplain t
6) Des ositional bars or benches o
7) Braided channels I
8) Recent alluvial deposits o
9)' Naturallevees o
10) Headcuts o
;:~~~ ~ ~~':':~ s ~ Absent (0) Weak 0.5 Moderate (1 Strong (1.5)
11) Grade controls o.5
12) Natural valley and drainageway t
13) Second or greater order channel on existin No(0)= 0 Yes(3)=
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence
Mnn-mnde ditches nre not ruled; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 8 Absent (0) Weak (1) Moderate (2) Strong (3)
14) Groundwater flow/dischar e 1
15) Water in channel and >48 hours since rain, or 2
Water in channel--dry or owin season
_....
<:<
Absent (1.5)
Weak (1)
Moderate (0.5
5tron (0)
16) Leaflitter 0.5
... _ _.
Absent (0)
Weak (0.5)
Moderate (1)
Stron (1.5)
17) Sediment on lants 0.5
18) Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1
19) Hydric soils (redoximo hic features) present? No(0)= Yes(3)= 3
C. Biolo Subtotal= 4 Absent(3) Weak(2) Moderate(1) Stron (0)
20)bFibrous roots in channel 1
21)b Rooted plants in channel 1
Absent(0 Weak .5) Moderate(1) Stron (1.5)
22) Crayfish 0
_._
,.

Absent(0)

Weak(1)

Moderate(2)

Strong 3
23) Bivalves 0
__
Absent(0)
Weak(.5)
Moderate(l)
Stron (LS)
24) Fish 0
25) Am hibians 0
26) Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27) Filamentous al ae; peri hyton 0
28) Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0.5
FAC(0.5) FACW(0.75) OBL(1.5) SAV(2.0 Other(0)
29)° Wetland plants in streambed 0.5
h Ltems 20 and 21 focus an the presence of upland plants, item 29 foctues on the presence of nquaric ar wetland plants
TOTAL POINTS = 17.5
QCGreater Than Or Hqua] To 19 Poims The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Notes: (use the back of this form for additional notes)
Photo 22.24lLocatetl in the upper section of main drainage near pond seep

.l
MONTHLY REPORT OF RIVER/FLOOD CONDITIONS -June 2006
NO MAJOR FLOODING OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH
Overview.
zoo7o478
Moderate drought conditions continued across much of the hydrologic
area during the month. Flash Flooding occurred on the 23rd and 25th
through the 26th of the month. Very heavy rainfall caused flash flooding
in the Bat Cave area and downstream to Lake Lure. A significant land slide
also occurred at Jones Gap State park.
Rainfall during the month was generally above normal at all major reporting
sites except for Hickory. Yearly rainfall totals had improved slightly, but
were still below normal across the western Carolinas and northeast Georgia.
Asheville was 6.31 inches below normal, Charlotte was 5.25 below normal, and
Greenville/Spartanburg was 9.67 below normal.
Temperatures and Precipitation Trends
Rainfall at observation sites were as follows:
Station Rainfall Normal Departure Percentage
Month Month for month of normal
Asheville 5.16 4.38 0.78 118
Charlotte 7.40 3.42 3.98 216
Greenville/ 5.18 3.92 1.26 132
Spartanburg
Anderson 3.89 3.40 0.49 114
Hickory 3.42 4.74 -1.32 72~
Temperatures ranged from 1.6 degrees above normal in upstate South Carolina
to 1.9 below normal in the Charlotte area.
River and Basin Conditions
Most rivers and streams had flows that were well below normal at the end of
the month. During the last week of the month, heavy rain caused several main
stem rivers to rise to just below flood stage. The Saluda River at West Pelzer
rose to a level of 8.6 ft.
Hydrologic Products
The following products were issued by WFO GSP during the month:
FLW FLOOD WARNINGS 5
FLS FLOOD STATEMENTS 31
FW FLASH FLOOD WARNINGS 11
FFS FLASH FLOOD STATEMENTS 14
ESF DROUGHT STATEMENTS 2

MONTHLY REPORT OF RIVER/FLOOD CONDITIONS -July 2006
NO MAJOR FLOODING OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH
Overview
Moderate drought conditions continued across much of the hydrologic
area during the month. Northeast Georgia and the upstate of South
Carolina were leaning towards the severe drought category by the end
of the month.
Rainfall during the month was mainly below normal at all major reporting
sites. Yearly rainfall totals across the hydrologic area slipped further
below normal during July. So far this year: Asheville was 7.37 inches
below normal, Charlotte was 5.39 below normal, and Greenville/Spartanburg
was 11.80 below normal.
Temperatures and Precipitation Trends
Rainfall at observation sites were as follows:
Station Rainfall Normal Departure Percentage
Month Month for month of normal
Asheville 2.81 3.87 -1.06 73~
Charlotte 3.65 3.79 -0.14 96g
Greenville/ 2.52 4.65 -2.13 54$
Spartanburg
Anderson 0.73 3.63 -2.90 20~
Hickory 2.91 4.17 -1.26 70~
Temperatures ranged from 1 to 4 degrees above normal in the western
Carolinas and northeast Georgia. At the end of the month, problems with
high heat index values were starting to occur. Some shelters with air
conditioning were being opened in the Charlotte, NC and Greenville, SC
areas.
River and Basin Conditions
Most rivers and streams had flows that were well below normal at the end
of the month. Some rivers in South Carolina and Northeast Georgia were
almost dry.
Hydrologic Products
The following products were issued by WFO GSP during the month:
FLW FLOOD WARNINGS 0
FLS FLOOD STATEMENTS 30
FFW FLASH FLOOD WARNINGS 3
FFS FLASH FLOOD STATEMENTS 6
ESF DROUGHT STATEMENTS 2

MONTHLY REPORT OF RIVER/FLOOD CONDITIONS -August 2006
NO MAJOR FLOODING OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH
Overview
Drought conditions continued across much of western Carolinas and
northeast Georgia. During the last week of the month, some heavy
rain fell across the Carolinas. Northeast Georgia remained fairly
dry and in a moderate drought. Rainfall for the month was above
normal across the area, mainly due to the heavy rain during the
last week of the month.
Temperatures and Precipitation Trends
Rainfall at observation sites were as follows:
Station Rainfall Normal Departure Percentage
Month Month for month of normal
Asheville 7.12 4.30 +2.82 175 ~
Charlotte 7.20 3.72 +3.48 194 ~
Greenville/ 6.48 4.08 +2.40 159 ~
Spartanburg
Anderson 4.10 3.75 +0.35 109 ~
Hickory 7.14 3.85 +3.29 185 ~
Temperatures were near normal in most locations. Temperatures were
slightly below normal in the Charlotte area.
River and Basin Conditions
Most rivers and streams had flows that were normal or slightly below
normal at the end of the month.
Hydrologic Products
The following products were issued by WFO GSP during the month:
FLW FLOOD WARNINGS 0
FLS FLOOD STATEMENTS 54
FFW FLASH FLOOD WARNINGS 9
FFS FLASH FLOOD STATEMENTS 15
FFA FLASH FLOOD WATCHS 5
ESF DROUGHT STATEMENTS 3

MONTHLY REPORT OF RIVER/FLOOD CONDITIONS -September 2006
NO MAJOR FLOODING OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH
Overview
Moderate drought conditions eased across western North Carolina
during the month. However, NE Georgia and the upstate of South
Carolina continued to have moderate drought conditions across
the Savannah River basin.
Rainfall during the month was above normal in North Carolina while
mainly below normal in South Carolina and NE Georgia. As of January 1,
2006 rainfall totals across NC were improved while South Carolina and
northeast Georgia were still up to 9.4 inches below normal.
Rainfall at observation sites were as follows:
Station Rainfall Normal Departure Percentage
Month Month for month of normal
Asheville 7.80 3.72 4.68 209
Charlot e 4.38 3.83 0.55 114
Greenville/ 3.96 3.97 -0.01 99.7
Spartanburg
Anderson 3.84 4.19 -0.35 92~
Hickory 9.94 4.24 5.70 234;s
Temperatures
Temperatures ranged from 2 to 11 degrees colder tha n normal in
the western Carolinas and northeast Georgia.
River and Ba sin Conditions
Most rivers and streams had flows that were well below normal
at the first of the month. By the end of the month, most streams
were back to normal or slightly below normal. Some rivers in
South Caroli na and Northeast Georgia in the Savanna h River
basin were well below normal.
Hydrologic Products
The following products were issued by WFO GSP during the month:
FLW FLOOD WARNINGS 0
FLS FLOOD STATEMENTS 36
FFW FLASH FLOOD WARNINGS 0
FFS FLASH FLOOD STATEMENTS 0
ESF DROUGHT STATEMENTS 2
FFA FLOOD WATCHS 1

MONTHLY REPORT OF RIVER/FLOOD CONDITIONS -October 2006
NO MAJOR FLOODING OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH
Overview
Moderate drought conditions eased across the western Carolinas
and northeast Georgia by the end of the month.
Rainfall during the month ranged from above normal to slightly
below normal across the western Carolinas and northeast Georgia.
Yearly rainfall totals from January 1 2006 to October 31 2006
were near normal across much of the western Carolinas and northeast
Georgia. The one exception was in the Greenville SC area where
rain fall totals were 8.71 inches below normal for the year.
Rainfall at observation sites were as follows:
Station Rainfall Normal Departure Percentage
Month Month for month of normal
Asheville 2.93 3.18 -0.25 92~
Charlotte 3..80 3.66 0.14 103
Greenville/ 4.58 3.88 0.70 118$
Spartanburg
Anderson 3.80 3.23 0.57 118
Hickory 3.11 3.57 -0.46 87~
Temperatures
Average temperatures ranged from 1 to 2.5 degrees colder than
normal in the western Carolinas and northeast Georgia for the
month of October.
River and Basin Conditions
Most rivers and streams had flows that were below normal at the
first of the month. By the end of the month most streams were
back to normal or slightly above normal.
Hydrologic Products
The following products were issued by WFO GSP during the month:
FLW FLOOD WARNINGS 0
FLS FLOOD STATEMENTS 2
FFW FLASH FLOOD WARNINGS 0
FFS FLASH FLOOD STATEMENTS 0
ESF DROUGHT STATEMENTS 3
FFA FLOOD WATCHS 0

MONTHLY REPORT OF RIVER/FLOOD CONDITIONS -November 2006
NO MAJOR FLOODING OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH
Overview
Below normal rainfall for the month across South Carolina
and northeast Georgia has resulted in below normal reservoir
levels in the Savannah River basin. While above normal
rainfall resulted in the lifting of drought conditions
across western North Carolina.
There were 2 heavy rain events that lead to some small
stream and urban flooding during the month. The first event
was on the 15th through 16th with rainfall amounts ranging
from 1 to 3.5 inches. The second event was on 21st through
22nd with rainfall amounts ranging from 0.50 to 4.00 inches.
The heaviest rain fell in the Charlotte NC area.
Rainfall at observation sites were as follows:
Station Rainfall Normal Departure Percentage
Month Month for month of normal
Anderson 2.51 3.68 -1.17 68~
Asheville 4.52 3.82 0.70 120
Charlotte 6.30 3.36 2.94 188
Greenville/ 3.58 3.79 -0.21 94~
Spartanburg
Hickory 4.19 3.64 0.55 115
Temperatures
Average temperatures ranged from -0.6 (charlotte area) to 1.5
degrees across the western Carolinas and northeast Georgia
for the month of November.
River and Basin Conditions
Most rivers and streams had flows that were below normal at the
first of the month. By the end of the month most streams were
back to normal or slightly above normal.
Hydrologic Products
The following products were issued by WFO GSP during the month:
FFA FLOOD WATCHS 9
FLW FLOOD WARNINGS 9
FLS FLOOD STATEMENTS 33
FFW FLASH FLOOD WARNINGS 2
FFS FLASH FLOOD STATEMENTS 3
ESF DROUGHT STATEMENTS 1

MONTHLY REPORT OF RIVER/FLOOD CONDITIONS -December 2006
NO MAJOR FLOODING OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH
Overview
Above normal rainfall for the month fell across in the Asheville
and Hickory areas in North Carolina and Greenville areas in South
Carolina. Below normal rainfall occurred in the Charlotte NC and
Anderson SC areas.
For the year, both the Asheville and Charlotte reporting sites
recorded above normal rainfall. Asheville was 1.22 inches above
normal for the year and Charlotte was 0.91 inches above normal.
At Greenville/ Spartanburg airport the rainfall for the year was
8.44 inches below normal.
There were 2 heavy rain events that resulted in small stream and
urban flooding during the month. The first event was on the 25th
through 26th with rainfall amounts ranging from 1 to 3.5 inches.
The second event was on the 31st into January with rainfall amounts
ranging from 0.50 to 6.00 inches. The heaviest rain fell in the
French broad basin where the river at Blantyre rose above flood
stage on January 1st.
Rainfall at observation sites were as follows:
Station Rainfall Normal Departure Percentage
Month Month for month of normal
Anderson 3.76 3.84 -0.08 98~
Asheville 4.64 3.40 1.24 136;s
Charlotte 2.37 3.18 -0.81 75~
Greenville/ 4.34 3.86 0.48 112
Spartanburg
Hickory 3.74 3.59 0.15 104
Temperatures
Average temperatures ranged from 5.0 (Greenville/Spartanburg area) to
3.0 degrees (Charlotte) across the western Carolinas and northeast
Georgia for the month of December.
River and Basin Conditions
Most rivers and streams had flows that were normal at the first of
the month. By the end of the month most streams were above normal.
Hydrologic Products
The following products were issued by WFO GSP during the month:
FFA FLOOD WATCHS 11
FLW FLOOD WARNINGS 1
FLS FLOOD STATEMENTS 7
FFW FLASH FLOOD WARNINGS 0
FFS FLASH FLOOD STATEMENTS 0
ESF DROUGHT STATEMENTS 0

VITA SUMMARY
January 25, 2007
James Douglas Gregory
CPSS, PWS, Ph.D.
2 0 0 7 0 4 7 8
Professor of Forestry, Watershed and Wetlands Hydrology
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources
North Carolina State University, Box 8008, Raleigh, NC 27695-8008
[phone]; jim~[e-mail]
PrincipaUSenior Scientist
Watershed Hydrology Consultants LLC
6301 Deerview Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone] (M), [e-mail]
EDUCATION
B. S., North Carolina State University, Forest Management 1965
M. S., North Carolina State University, Soil Science 1968
Ph.D., North Carolina State University, Forest Hydrology and Soils 1975
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1968-1972 U.S. Army, Rank of Captain, Rotary Wing Aviator, Maintenance Officer.
1972-1991 U.S. Army National Guard. Terminal position -Lieutenant Colonel, Plans and
Operations Officer, HQ, State Area Command.
1991-present U.S. Army Reserve. Colonel, Retired Reserve.
1975-1978 Assistant Professor of Forestry (Forest Soils), School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
1979-present Assistant Professor of Forestry (Watershed and Wetlands Hydrology), 1978-1981;
Associate Professor of Forestry (1981-1996); Professor of Forestry (1996); Coordinator
of Undergraduate programs, 1985-1989; Assistant Head for Undergraduate Programs,
1989-1995; Coordinator of NCSU Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources
Programs, 1995 - 2005; 2005 -Present, NCSU Phased Retirement Program, half-time;
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
2005 -present PrincipaUSenior Scientist, Watershed Hydrology Consultants LLC, Raleigh, NC
TEACHING AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER EXPERIENCE
University Courses: Watershed and wetlands hydrology (undergraduate and graduate); graduate course
in wetland functional assessment, wetland delineation, and wetland regulations; fire management in
forests; natural resource measurements.
Short Courses on Forest Hydrology, Wetland Hydrology, Wetland Delineation, Stream Identification,
Soil Management for Wetland and Stream Mitigation, Forest Water Management, Forestry BMP's,
Vegetation Management, Forest Soils, Bottomland Hardwoods, Wetland Mitigation, Riparian Zone
Structure and Functions, and many others
Technology transfer through service on statewide committees and task forces; current: NC Forest
Practices Guidelines Technical Advisory Committee; NC Forestry Association Forest Management

and Environment Committee; Co-Chair, NC Technical Advisory Committee on Streams; Technical
Advisory Committee of the NC Sedimentation Control Commission.
Development and implementation of the NC Division of Water Quality Identification Methods for the
Origin of Intermittent and Perennial Streams: I have worked closely with NCDWQ in the
development and implementation of the field methods for stream classification and stream origin
identification, have assisted with the NCDWQ training and certification workshops for state agency
personnel, and have conducted a number of training workshops for consultants in NC and VA.
The NC Rapid Wetland Assessment Methodology - I served on an ad hoc task force that developed the
NCWAM, soon to be released for public review.
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
1. Watershed Hydrolo~y -Watershed assessment; effects of silvicultural practices on runoff and water
quality; water quality assessments; hydrology of streams, wetlands, riparian zones, and filter zones;
hydrology assessment and alteration for wetland restoration; water management and water quality in
drained forest plantations; hydrologic impacts of urbanization; stormwater management and impacts
on streams; suspended sediment analyses.
2. Stream Networks -Identification, classification, and assessment of streams; geomorphic, hydrologic,
and biologic characteristics of headwater streams; development of LIDAR/GIS based methods for
improved mapping of headwaters streams.
3. Wetland Miti ag tion -Effects of restoration on the hydrology of a large Carolina Bay with prior
converted agricultural land; development of practices for hydrologic assessment of potential
restoration sites and for hydrologic restoration.
4. Management of Riparian Ecosystems and Stream Corridors - Streamside management zones in
forestry; design and management of stream-side recreation areas; streambank stabilization and stream
restoration; bottomland hardwood management; fine resolution remote sensing mapping of riparian
zones and adjacent land use/land cover for hydrologic applications; impacts of culvert stream
crossings on stream hydrodynamics and aquatic habitat.
5. Forest Soils -Fertilization of loblolly pine stands; effects of silvicultural practices on soil physical
and chemical properties; reforestation and soil conservation in developing countries.
CURRENT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Methodology to Assess Soil, Hydrologic, and Site Parameters That Affect Wetland Restoration
Success. This project involves amulti-disciplinary, 7-year study of the restoration of a large Carolina
Bay wetland (800 ac) that has been drained and managed for agricultural crop production for several
decades. I am conducting a study of surface and subsurface hydrology before and after restoration
construction activities in conjunction with a study of different methods of hydrologic restoration.
Detailed studies of geology, soils, and the vegetative community will be conducted by other
investigators on the team.
Development of Methodologies to Improve Mapping of Headwaters Streams in NC. This work
involves the use of LIDAR bare earth data to develop fine resolution topographic maps, GIS
algorithms to define the stream networks, and the development of geomorphic models to predict the
locations and origins of first order streams in the network. Collection of extensive survey data across
North Carolina on headwaters stream networks provides for testing the accuracy of current maps and
to evaluate accuracy of the new mapping methodologies.

Black Creek Watershed Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration Planning Program. In this
project, a detailed watershed assessment will be conducted in the watershed of Black Creek, an urban
stream in the Town of Cary, NC. Watershed geomorphic assessments will be conducted via remote
sensing and GIS analysis as well as on-the-ground surveys. A stream gauging station, a rain gauge,
and several stream water quality sampling stations will be installed to collect data on the water
balance and water quality of the watershed. Pollution source assessments will be conducted. A
watershed advisory group will be established to assist in the development and implementation of a
watershed restoration plan.
SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS
(Total of 60 publications and reports and 49 paper presentations)
Amatya, D. M., R. W. Skaggs, and J. D. Gregory. 1996. Effects of controlled drainage on the hydrology
of a drained pine plantation in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. Journal of Hydrology 181: 211-
232.
Calvo, J. C. and J. D. Gregory. 1997. Predicting mean annual runoff and suspended sediment yield in
rural watersheds in North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Water Resources Research
Institute Report No. 307.
Amatya, D. M., R. W. Skaggs, and J. D. Gregory. 1997. Evaluation of a watershed scale forest
hydrologic model. Agricultural Water Management 32 (1997): 239-258.
Amatya, D. M., R. W. Skaggs, and J. D. Gregory, and R. B. Herrmann. 1997. Hydrology of a drained
forested pocosin watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33 (3): 525-
546.
Edwards, P. J., J. D. Gregory, and H. L. Allen. 1999. Seasonal sulfate deposition and export patterns for
a small Appalachian watershed. Water, Soil, and Air Pollution 110: 137-155.
Amatya, D. M., J. D. Gregory, and R. W. Skaggs. 2000. Effects of controlled drainage on storm event
hydrology in a loblolly pine plantation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
36(1): 175-190.
Franklin, E. C., J. D. Gregory, D. W. Hazel, and J. W. Parsons. 2000. Management of forested filter
zones for dispersion and treatment of agricultural runoff. University of North Carolina, Water
Resources Research Institute Report No. 312
Greco, B. F. and J. D. Gregory. 2000. Stormwater and process water management at North Carolina
wood chip mills. Paper No. 7 in Economic and Ecologic Impacts Associated with Wood Chip
Production in North Carolina, Southern Center for Sustainable Forests, Dept. of Forestry, NC
State University, Raleigh.
Gregory, J. D., S. D. Smith, E. Fleek, and D. Penrose. 2002. What is a Stream? Proceedings of
Watershed 2002, February 23-27, 2002, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Darling, R., J. Lawson, J. D. Gregory, and D. Penrose. 2002. Stream Identification and Mapping for
Watershed Protection. Proceedings of Watershed 2002, February 23-27, 2002, Ft. Lauderdale,
FL.
Caldwell, P. V., A. A. Adams, C. P. Niewoehner, M. J. Vepraskas, and J. D. Gregory. 2005. Sampling
Device to Extract Intact Cores in Saturated Organic Soils. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 69: 2017-2075.

Thomas P. Colson, James D. Gregory, Helena Mitasova, and Stacy A. C. Nelson. 2006. Comparison of
Stream Extraction Models Using LIDAR DEMS. Geographic Information System and Water
Resources IV, AWRA Spring Specialty Conference. Houston, Texas, May 8-10, 2006.
Thomas P. Colson, James D. Gregory, Stacy A. C. Nelson, and Edward G. Shipman. 2006. A Mobile
Geographic Information System to Support Stream Identification. Geographic Information
System and Water Resources IV, AWRA Spring Specialty Conference. Houston, Texas, May 8-
10, 2006.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
Society of American Foresters; American Water Resources Association; Society of Wetland Scientists;
Soil Science Society of America; Association of State Wetlands Managers; North Carolina Forestry
Association; North Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals; Soil Science Society of North
Carolina; The Conservation Trust for North Carolina, member Board of Counselors
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATONS
Certified Professional Soil Scientist: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of
America
Professional Wetland Scientist: Society of Wetland Scientists
HONOR SOCIETIES
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Phi Kappa Phi, National Honor Society;
Gamma Sigma Delta, The Honor Society of Agriculture; Xi Sigma Pi, Forestry Honor Society; Alpha
Zeta, Agricultural and Forestry Honor Society
EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE RELATED TO WETLAND DELINEATION
Knowledge of and experience in wetlands of the southeastern Coastal Plain: Through research
projects, teaching activities, and technology transfer activities, I am quite familiar with all of the
wetland types of NC, VA, SC, and GA. I have limited experience in wetlands in the other southern
states but have visited wetlands of various types in almost all of the states to be included in the
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain manual supplement.
Scientific background: I have much knowledge and experience in the science of wetland hydrology
and wetland soils, much less so in the science of hydrophytic plants. I have conducted research on
wetland hydrology in all of the wetland types in NC with the exception of estuarine fringe wetlands.
Dr. Jon Stucky, Associate Professor of Botany at NCSU and a specialist in wetland plants assists me
in all of my classes on wetland delineation and wetland functional assessment to teach all segments
on hydrophytic plants.
Experience in wetland delineation: I have been teaching wetland delineation since 1997,
implemented first as part of a graduate course on wetland assessment, delineation, and regulation and
then in 1998 as a standard, week-long short course offered through the NCSU Forestry and
Environmental Outreach Program. A copy of the brochure and agenda of a recent offering of the
short course is attached. I worked closely with staff of the Wilmington Regulatory Division in
developing the course to ensure that it followed Regulatory IV as close as possible. Each time the
course is offered, I attempt to schedule an experienced member of the Wilmington Regulatory
Division to give an overview of current issues in delineation and regulation. There has been very
high demand for my delineation course in recent years here in NC and I have not attempted to
schedule courses in other states simply because I did not have the time. The on campus graduate
course is offered annually. The short course is offered at least once annually and has been taught 9
times in the last 3 years.
4

Agent Authorization ~ ~ ~ < ;~ ~ 7 8
US Army Carps of Engineers
Section 404
Project Name: Midland/Saddlebrook site
Project Address: north of Bethel School Road, south of SC Highway 24/27 and west of US
Highway 601 in the town of Midland North Carolina
Tax Assessor Parcel Na.
Applicant:
Name/Company: Land Craft
Mailing Address: I435West Morehead Street. Suite I3S
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephone Number: '704-343-9885 Fax number.
Current Owner (if different from applicant}:
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Consultant Information:
Company: ESP Associates. P.A
Ate: Renee Gallimore
Mailing Address: 3475 Lakemont Blvd
Fort Mill SC 29708
Telephone Number: 803-802-2440
Fax Number: 803-$02-2536
I / we, ~~~,~ ~d C~a~- i1'~t.r n~.en,-~ ,Ll_1' _ hereby certify that I / ~ are the legal
owner(s) or legal Lase-holder or other legal contract-holder of that certain property referenced above,
and do hereby give, grant and / or convey unto the US Army Corps of Engineers the right to enter upon
ar across said property for the purpose of verification of fla~~ed jurisdictional wetland and stream
boundaries located on the property by ESP Associates. P.A It is hereby agreed that the right of entry
granted shall waive claim of trespass on said property and shall not be deemed a trespass during the
period ending on ~-'~ ~t~~
Furthermore, I / we do hereby authorize ESP Associates, P.A. to act on the behalf of~ l~-i C l ('.r~~t~--
Oi. ,~ in all natural resource services (specifically we8and and stream
matters) escribed under Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the property
referenced above.
Owner) p icant Date Owner/Applicant Date
Leas, id (i applica le} Date Owner/Applicant Date
Lease-holders must provide proof of their authority to sign this document by providing a copy of u cotpomte resolution or
other dacumentatian sa stating.

~(`j ~ ~' ~ ~ (F 8
,_ Q
Q
r~`
V
`•~, F\ - O
~~ ~ J
~~, m J
~,
,,
\, W Q
~~ ~
~\~~ O W
i~ Q ~
~~ ~ 0
~~ ~
// E ~
., ~ \ ~~
'~ /~ ~~ ~
~~
~ ~~`~
/ / ~~
~/~
/ ~ ~ ,
i~%~~ ~~ ~
. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~o
•/
~, ~~ ~~ 6 ti0~~
i'
/ o
i • ~ ~1

-. ~
/ / .
/ I~gl I I / , \•~, ~~
~ ~ -T ~~~ ~ ~ i;~l ~e~
~ fa=
yp ~~~ i ••
~ - ~
I~ \
~ ~
~ ~ Y A g
w
a
d 4 F
U ,..,
rn s
~~
a ~ "~
a
6

IMPACT ONE
73 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM
INCL UD/NG R/PRAP APRON
GRAPHIC SCALE
s °' ' ~ SADDLEBROOK SUBDII/lS/ON
1 InaA ~ 60 R
""'~' PROFILE OF /MPACT ONE

i t l ~ i
s
t ~
~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ t ~ 1 1 1 `
1 1 \ 1 ~ ~ "w--,.~., f
\ l ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ti
l 1 ~ 1
\ l \\\ ~ .
4 yl j 1 ~ ~~ \ ~
y ~ . ,'
! ~ i J~r15 ~1 ` ~` _ ~~,~-
i ri + 1 r ~ `~ `.
~ t ~ i JC1~C ~ J~ SA `~ ~`~
t ~ r JC1 ~ ~~ `~
1 t t 1 i ~
i f ~ ~ ~
~ ~ i i ~ J615 l `~ ,~
t ! 1 f \ \ ~ `
1 r ~ ~ JC1~ ~~ `YVETL NDS `~
t 1 i { ~,04 ACRES ~~ ~
1t ! { 1 tl 1, Zt ~~/
~ i ~ i + ~tJC14 tl \\\ t ~ ~
~ ~ t t ~ 1 \ 1 O
t~ ~t ~i ~ JCt~2 ~ J621~`~` ~ 1 ll °~A
~l ~ti ~~ ~4 t JC13=J62t, ` ~ `.
1 1 ~ G ~ 1
t 1 1 1 t ~~ `+. ..
t \ 1 ~ i 1 ~ ,,
.
( t ~
i t S ~ t ~ y ~ .
1 t S ~ ~ ti
f ~ t ~ Y~/PACT AREA ~
f t ~ t t ~ ` \ ~^~ -`
f t ~ ` `
j J620 J619 `ti ~
1 ~ i Y ~ ~
+ 1 J 1
t t } ~ 1 ~
~ j t !!!
~ ~ 1 ~ t .
t 1 1 r
{ i
~~ ~~ 1 1 ~ f
~~
~ f t t ~
f i f
~ ~ 1
t ~
I, ~ i
t t
~ I f 1
/ J t t 1
i 7 1
i r t t
f t t
f fJ t 1
~ 1
' d f ~~ 1 I
t
'~ !1 f { I
r ~ t t 1
1 ~ ~ E
1 ~ jp ~ ~~ 1
t / t 1
~ ~ / 7 I
r 1 It
t
~ ~l 1
~ ~ I
~ ` ~ ~1 ~ I
`\~ `~ `\ t
l ~ - ~_
. \ \
1 t
` 4
~~ ~` ~ ~~`
1 ~ `\ ~
t ~ ~
\ L 1`
i ~

J61~ t `
t ~
~ ~
~ ~
l ~* -w
\ ~
J614 ~~ `~`
i ~ ~ ti
fF ~ ~ `~
1 11 `~ ~"
rt ~~1613 `t `~,
!f t\ 111 ~`~
t ~
1 `~ ~~
t ~... .. ~ 1.
73.0 L/NEAR FEET OF /MPACT
INCL UO/NC R/PRAP APRON
t3RAPHIC SCALE
" °' ' SADDLEBROOK SUBDMS/ON
IdM•00 R
"" ~" IMPACT AREA ONE

IMPACT TWO
73.5 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM
INCLUDING R/PRAP APRON
GRAPHIC SCALE
°' ' ~ SADDLEBROOK SUED/I/lS/ON
1 Inoli 60 R
""'~' IMPACT AREA TWO

• r ~ 1
d
t
~° ° °° tYA31 Jr t ~r
~'° ~ r1 alJD07 tr ~
°° ° °
°° ~P ED~fS3 1 t s~
tr °° t6 1 t tt /, ,~"
t ,, ° t er 1 ! d
Jt ' °e° ~ it > rl Jf~08=Jq~0 rr ,~° rr
t
I J 1
ar r f J~.30=Jp08 ff ~ ,r ~~
r ', °r ff tt t1 f ,° ~r
t ~ ~' r° r JA29 t t f ~ r
l) ~° ~ r t tt t t
` i rr JA28=ED01 t t j tf t t
df lp r t' t j t ,t !t !
' ~, P J t t J /
_ _~' .r r t t I r 1 t
/ 1
,•
t
J r t t tr v
! t t /l ! / '
t
I
r
d
t
~ r t h
t
t t I j I
!
! !
7
0
J
t
/
r
t t t
t
1 t
t t
t
t
J tt t
t
I
t t r
i JA26 t t
I
t t ! t r f
~
r r
f I ~ t
l
t r tt t
f
E i
t! ! +
t 1 ~
tt I t ~r
f
~ f f t
t
~ t f /
t f
jar IMP~fCT AREA ~f A25 ,.- ~ ~ 1
# # tt ~ t
€ ~ rt

~ ! ~
•
t 1 f
s 1 f
JA24
1
t
~
t 1 ~~
f ~
~
,
r ~ t
r f
~
7
~~ ~ f
f i
\ ~
~ ~
~
1 °
~
°
f I
l !
~ \
~ A
t \ ~
~
~ j
JA23
f #t ` ~
} t
~t \~ ~.
~
~
~
~ d r
s t `
l *
\
v \

s t r

I \
l
t

\ ^• ~ \
f ~ ~
•~
l t
` \ t t
J °r \
,
~
t
f
fr t t
JA ! t t °
' \
1 \ ~
\ ,
1
r 1
P
Jt ~ ! r \\
1
f J tt t/ ° ` \
t
r
i r a J ~ t ° s
i r t r ~ ____
s __ ___
~ r f
f r f /
t r'
r /
~ J f /
f ~, .~. ~
r r
t
r If ~
t JA19 t t t t 1 / 1
t
! J
1
d
rt t t t
t
( t ! 1 1
I t
t
i "" ~.
t
r ~
d tt t t t t! t r v~
r
r
<
Ir
t JA18 1 ! 1
I / t
Jt
t
tt
/
1
r
t t

t! Ir ~

~~
r
e
r r
t t
~ t
t
t
t
t
t t t t r t t
t ! t
t
~~

r t JA17
'' ! t
t i t /
J ! t t t / t t~ t
t t t t J { / t i I
1
/ 1
t
1
1t t
~ J 1 Jt J t t t J
t r
i ti
t +f ! 1 t t t
f
t 1 f 1 /
t
t
t
t
f t
!

~'`~ 1 J
t f J
t
t tf t i 1 t f
rt
! f /

#
~,,,. .
t t I °
73.5 L/NEAR FEET OF /MPACT
INCLUD/NG RIPRAP APRON
GRAPHIC SCALE
1• • Y • Y ~
,~1~„
1 ISM ~ EO R
SADDLEBROOK SUED/VISION
IMPACT AREA TWO

LandCraft Properties
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
FSP Project #UC'23.700
March 14, 2007
PhOtO 1
Lower limits of system (taken during July 27, 2006 site visit) showing no
geomorphologic, hydrologic or biologic characteristics
Photo 2
Lower limits of system (taken during July 27, 2006 site visit) showing no
geomorphologic, hydrologic or biologic characteristics
! / t.sme! ! P.:it

l.andCratt Properties
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
ESP Project #UC23.700
March 14, 2007
Photo 3
(taken from east side of pond dam facing downstream)
Upper reach of system -area lacks geomorphologic characteristics -standing water
present from pond/dam seep
Photo 4
(taken from center of pond dam facing downstream)
Upper reach of system -area lacks geomorphology
15N 1..~~.1 ~~, P, i.

LandCraft Properties
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
ESP Project #UC23J00
March 14, 2007
Photo 5
Upper-middle reach of system -feature lacks bed/bank, riffle pool, substrate
differentiation, depositional bars, and no head cut is present. Contains pools of standing
water following rain events and vegetation is primarily composed of mesic (not wet)
species
Photo 6
Upper-middle reach of system
t sr ~,.d ~ ... r *F

LandCraft Properties
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
FSP Project #UC23.700
March 14. 2007
Photo 7
Middle reach of system -feature still lacks geomorphologic characteristics -flow pattern
is identified by pooled water and leaf litter being pushed aside
(this visit was following a large rain event)
Photo 8
Middle reach of system -feature still lacks geomorphologic characteristics. Pools lack
consistent connection and soils are not hydric (chromas of 3)
i+P E~rfx Fit P. A6

LandCraft Properties
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
ESP Project #UC23.700
March 14, 2007
Photo 9
Further downstream -feature develops moderate bed/bank, weak to moderate sinuosity,
pockets of standing water and absent flow
Photo 10
Further downstream -feature continues with weak/moderate bed/bank (possible old ditch
line?); no substrate differentiation and no riffle/pool sequence; this feature essentially
contains no geomorphic characteristics except for bed and bank

LandCraft Properties
Midland/Saddlebrook Site
F.SP Project #UC23.700
March 14, ?007
PIlOtO 11
Lower limits of system -area exhibits weak to absent geomorphologic and hydrologic
characteristics; no biology is present; soils are non-hydric and vegetation is primarily
composed of upland species
Photo 12
Lower limits of system -any flow connecting with downstream reach is either overland
flow or groundwater flow (no hydrology) - no stream characteristics present at all
t ~P.r., ,, v. r.

L.andCratt Properties
MidlandJSaddlebrook site
FSP Project #UC23.700
March 14. ?007
~:
Photo 13
Ephemeral downstream drainage (off-Site ditch) located in the cleared/maintained field
east of the Site consisting of very weak to absent geomorphology and hydrology, no
biology, and strong fibrous roots and plants in the channel
Photo 14
Ephemeral off-Site drainage ditch located in the cleared/maintained field east of the Site
consisting of weak to absent geomorphology and hydrology, no biology, and strong
fibrous roots and plants in the channel
! 1P i~f ! t P. -0.

TopoZone -USGS Midland (NC) Topo Map Page 1 of 1
M*
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 km G
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 mi
35.2397°N, 80.5152°W (NAD27)
USGS Midland (NC) Quadrangle ~~f~an/]~ -7.36
Projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD83 Datu iLS~ L.' =p , 2g
MAR 1 6 2007
~ENR -WATER t?UALITY
NaEI'LNrD3 AND STORbtWATER BFt1dVCH
http://www.topozone.com/print.asp?lat=35.23967&lon=-80.51516&s=48&size=l&u=5 &layer=DRG&dat... 3/6/2007

w
N
d

~. a~~~ ~~+ ~ J~ ~
~,' ~U(O~ l!J O Y ~ ~ ~
~' mo ~ ~ ~'. ~ ~ o a+ z J W ~ ~ ~ W
~ ~~ J~~ o ~°~~~ ~ W °~ V LL
~ ,~ 4 0
m L
a} ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ Y. t/}
U ~ ~- o V W
x~ ~ fem.. }~`. L
~ ~..I ~ ~(
`~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ Z~ ~ °r a ~ ~ ~ `~
W C U) ~ ~ oa ~
o
~~ r~~ , .
m ~ -~ ~
Y ~ % ~ j ~ ~ 1 ~'"
~~ . ~„~
Y {
,; J ~~.. ~,., ttU _. , ~. ~,~G.
r~.~~
F"!
,.
I ~r~ ~ ~~ v a~ u r
a~ p~~ iag it ~ 1r d
~f~ d~~~rN'~r~l~l~^r'~,'~~~~~1,~4~y~'~~4~1~P~~
~~ ~ ~/~w~4~h' ~9q~IC ~~~'~~n~'~ ~u~,~Y.
srr4~,i~~l~I~ry~,'IfjdE~°k~P'~~~~t~~~'FF~~~~~~"t ~
m' i%i.
~m~ ~~l
I .; '' ~ ~ ~~~~'~~..
I

,..
~. r

.~?

m -.(
47

ti
d
n

,...... /
<. yea ~'~ ~~
~ ..
~ d , ~•~ tti

-. ~ , .

..m -
~ rvv
>`sa
.~. .arsku ,~.
~~ ,.,,
,. ,. ~^'1 r

-.... _. _..._ _ . J X.ir..

C~ T ~ ~ ~' ~ i ~ r

i <

l I
i ~
~

e ~ s

~ 7
h ° ~ {
~ .~ r
7 ~
: t
°` ~ '
~ ~
i *,~ ~
~;.
. '~
0
q
~~ `~.
'{£'`• r
~~ x 3,
r

~~#
~~~
~~
a4a~'" ~,
~~~ ~ _
~~
'~i
~,
i.
.1~-'.
~S4j }~
~~~
~---"° ~ -
~i
isy"-,
~ ~,~~+.
tY
h
rt ~'
iM~

~,
x
~, u
4.
r a ~ ~ ~ # ~.
i_ i r
~ Y ~
ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y
`~ w y `"~
a ~70rL Rho
n
4I ~
ti
f
~Pd'!
y E- h

r ~ ~ 4
,

.. It
~
~ Z ~ 9~ ~ e
~" t.£d

v
~
;~
~ ~ ~ R ~' t

a `'

~. ~
Y. ~ O ~ ~ ",~, 7 ~ ~ ti. ~.K u

.y

d
4
S
. ~.
v~ Y

~ LF ~ 4q". ~St.
u
V;
"=i
1
~~ a
~~) ) ~~ 'liit
t, ( ~ ~';
1 i~~
3iy~ 1
]~
~; r'
.~
I ~T
"'~•.
j ~ G.
~. $
~~C.
N
~ ~
~'~.
~ "~
f M * w
;Z~
~ ~ i~
~ i~
d
~ ~`
YYY777 ~
'~ '~ 4 ~4 ~K ~ y.
, is
`
Q~y~ `~ ~ v
~Y x
~~i.. 4 ~.... ~
y 7~. `a kS C R
t9
~ f7i {1 a ~ ~. `,
.-~

~
a
1
~
~
in ~
PLC? K
r
~~
~N
Z~
0

.,. ~ .,
~ -.~r,r/, ~~, a.~ r~
Q
G^
r
a
V~
~'~ 1.~-~
~; ~ 7
x ~?
J ~ '~ r
~ ~ ~
t,~ y. ,r .u ~ ~ J ~ ~ a
/ y ~ J 4
<.1j ^~
N ti
I~ ti ~ µ' V ~ ~ W V 'k~
kpkp .7 i.. r .. ,a'i fi
A~
~ ~;
~.
~;
~g ~~~
~ ~ }
.~ ~~~
z
~ ;~
~~ ~~9
S
LX
D ~d
~a
~ ~~
~.
e~
~~
a~ ~~~
d~
1, 4
T ~~ ~~3
~i~~
Y { ~ +w. I~
r,A ry{ 1
34
k;
+J
LJ
~e
t7
~~ , ; ~
.N ~ , ~ c
Y
Y> 1.
~, J.
~~
~~
~f
~~~
~ ~
~~ 9
~~ ~~ `
~a~~. ~~f~ ~ ~~~~.
~~~~ e~°° a ~~
y ~~
s~~~
p~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~
.~ ~ x
~'~a~ ~
~~ i~' ~
~~~k ~~d~~~ *~
°P~~
~~
~~
~
~
~t x 9
x
~ ~
i~ { a
pp
t~ ~ z ~~
~ ~t
~
@~}
d A
t
j
~
y~SCr Yp $
Y L£~ k
x~ ~ ~
~ a
~. ~
~
~ y
.

~~~
~~ ~~

~y~~
~~,~ 9.
FL r~
pp$$
$ FXi iQ~ ~' ~ R

i
~' i
C
Y
~~
~
~tj~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ' i
~
+
t f i } ~ 4jj

~,
r
x 6
~~
` t ~ ~~ ~q
t ~~
t> ~ 411 ,~.
E ~
Y e
C L
jt, Y~
4 y~ ~i-
y~
`b1.f~, ~ ~
4 t 4 f
4 C
u
A
~Tt^ •,~
rY / ~ V
..~ ~~
~Q
~~~~
',~
0
~~
~~~
~~~

~,.~ i

x11@{
~. ~~
~
"P~
¢ n ~ ~
~
r
~~ ~ ~~~~~
ck
~~ ~gg
~6 ay~'~
~~ F
~~ ~ ~~~~"
3
~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~~

~
i a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~
~~ d$~f7dp#
,~~~
~
~~ '~9F ~ ~
t~ ~~`$
i~ b

.~ I )}
3
~{yba ~~'~~p~€
$
C~ '~~i
{ S
Yy
~. ' ~ ~ a-
~ Via. ~~ y~~~
~.~
~~~ ~ ~~~~
~: ~~'~
~ ~} ~ ~ ~~~ r~~ ~~
p }~a
` ~ ~'
s A' ~
/ 9 `` y (j/~ {Q~ qj
j{ ~~ i Z `t CAA ~~§,CC~ gi ~/ p~~ty' ~ L? 4e~
k
d~~

~i
/ 8 S lm p~ ~ s
/ n£m phi A
UOUGLF.SSUMCC'OY&WIFE '~~ // '^
P~ X~ // ~ ~
a
~y^'~n~o .- C
~~ W' H~N~o ~,~ ~
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2 MATCHLINE - EE SHEET 2 ~ ~~""aiM b ~
\\ 7 1 _ _ ~ m
\\\ ~/I~ ' ~ o o c w ~+
\^~~~ k ~a coio
\ ~ ~ ``Q 3 q ~£S;
4 ~' 2r\ .~
g a ~ W
\ ~~~`Y~~7 ~ 7 a
o ;n\\a ~ ' ~`y~ . e irk= '~
,~
V ' ® ~^~~~ _~ i / e
I. 1
\ a 17 = / ~ ~i
Sf•s~ $~ 2
.p/ Y
\ ~S m ~ w -mod ° "6 ~ W a
\
8~
\\ Vi'a' a~G_.~ ~~~d~.
\ ~Si~ R ~W
\ ~~ ~ ~~ro
\ 3- ~~y o
o v-/• woe
\ ~~p r o p
\ s = ~ h
\ ~'~ ~ 4i
Z
oW~ \\ .3/ 2
''vP~ ~~ a o~ o~ m
~ S h
~G dYY2~' 2`a/ `. h
b. ry\ ~ O yU
a\ ~ ~ ~ a
a'o 0
~~ \\ ~ a ° -
,~m ~ tl~~ ~~_ o
\ y ~ ""~
~ ~~ i~~ 4 ~ ~~y ~ o - ~.x
~~s. awe ~x a°~vv
N r / w ~a ~, a
N
Z ~ ~ 33~ ~ .o `o LE x
V 4 °<
$\ ~ ~ c~ ~ w nS j0 2'~/ r`~
D \ 2 II ~ ~. °~ ~ 2 y g
~,.~ eta -t -~-~ ~ a
o `,n~^~ 7 ~ ~ w ~
~~S
1 ~ 3m
/ Yj \ ~~ W "~ N ~lF
K ~
in 2~O/ ? Y
r 3
u ~ \ W'N y
i ~ '\\ii N / h ' o
~ S ~ ~~ F
9 i'M W iI1 ~ m4i ~ W
\ 2 ~~ ~o
A m~ 3 ~a
~n N~p
r -h~p' n
~~~ 2 n~N W~G~ W ~
2 p/p ~ ~' ~' z .. ]
\ N/ym a
O ~ ~ It 0 I I
orn N+ r. ~ I
'~ ~ ~ Fa I I
M `n .3iy Z i
Z r ~3, oh °~ W
N mN A hN W
M~' a y J
~ = 04
O` °g 2`O 3 &N
O ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ ;;
AA cT ;" ' S
26) ^iW a N ~ ~ i
O "~ ~ h
~ m~ o m
2 u~~~
s°~a°~
a
~ Y ~ pg
z 4
r F`A`A 6 ~ ~`d a~~ ~~~~a~~gk~dge~e
,° ~ 3~Y 2 ~ C~~i.~ j ~ Q ~~ ~£k~~,~~y~
~ q go
,r...~ ~ < ~ o ~ g b~ 5 ~ ~~"sag"s fag,~y
3»4'4 Y8~ Y
µ~~ ~ z ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~~~~aa~ ~ ~°a~gaY`~4~e:~~
~~ ~ d ~~~~ °z ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ Via. ~ ~~~~~~>~ ~~~'~~
< g

W a

yy R~~f
~~

~ ~~
F

~$ ~'-
"~
s
~ S
~e
s
~ Y7a~
®C

~~ ~9

~ 1~~

g
~ ~~~
~

~~ ~~

~ ~~

gg
~ E~

E
~ 9~
a

~ ~~
qq
R~ ~~

~R ~i

~~ ?;

F
3 ~Rx

~C ~~
R
F
3 1~
~

~ ~~
:" 3~

~ ~£

R
3 °s~~~

~ gg
~
~
a ..3 ~ d d $ ~ 3 d dd dd dd d dd d ~ s~ d ~d
x
o gg RS~~
~ g$gRp$pq~z9Gz
~ 9A ~$ g&y~ $$~$gRy9Ry~~ ^~y~~
~ ~a
~~ yy~ ~~
~~ RR "
~ ~~ !~!~~
~ dyyyyyy&
~~ ~
~~ 9~
~ ~~
~ 3g~yggg~g q
~ p$~p
~ py¢$¢$ yF y~~pg°~~gy~
~~
u i $ E
d E 3 a dd Tt ~ .5 ~ d .~ ~ ~ ~ Sil d d .S Ed%
~
s ~ ~i ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~@ ~~~~ $~ ~~ t~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~"4 ~~ ~k4 4~ R~ ~~ ~~ 4G k~~~~

° ~~
~~ BR
$~ ~~ik
~~~ B
$ S~MR
~~ .R{q~
~~ ,`~~
~~ R
~ ~S
~~ G4
~ C
X h3
¢¢~ $R
~ 7g ~R~
~S ui
~~ ~~~
a ?8
~ ~
~ ~~~~
~~ Rs ~~ 8
~ ~3$ ~S ~ ~~ ~ A
~~ ~F YS R~ $~ ~P
~ ~~
~~ ~w
~ 91R ~&
R
R a ~ ~x aa Ra x ~~ a ~a Ra ~~ xa ax x ~ aa ,
"x
a
i yA
4 4~{ YE3+I ~~ ~iS i R iW4 Ri §~ ~i i~ i+, ~~ ii i~ ~5~ SS 53 ~ ~~ ~w ~ ~33~ 33 ~~~0 4C R9 CS lG 9~ ~®~~ ~~ b7 b~ Ctl C C i S ~~ $~ ~~

7
4
L ~~
`y
a.~
r
Mp O M
~~ ~
~ ~~!
mlm
o ~
5 5 0
N~n
~ ~ Q ~ O O 3
o ~ ~ N
~~~~~
3~
• h/ o~
y~~~~e.
@,
^~~, ~a
~ti
~M ~ti~
h/
r° ~°° ~
c`~ :° /
~ & /
a~ w /
0
,3/,
m
h
~"'~/p~
5~
srlsa5rs-N
---- o 0 0
o~ ~o
~a v
.~
~ d
Sao
a `s,~~ a
~ o - '~ E ..
w
z
J
2
U
F-
Q
f
~~.
~~
~3 m
o ad
~ N
O
Z
Z . /
80 ~
O`
$
Z 3~
~I10
NI t0
OI
Z
I
3~<
mI~
ol~
a
N
O
Z
' r
?we
=3g
um°~
°6
d
.
3
m~n

"-111.11 AUJJ YGfUbIS110''Jd ~-Fln _~~
JS]JNVyd B.
~~~~ .bS'LSS
____ ~I N

N

aS AUJJw [I Stl'1UIlOU , _
~~
3-9f,bf.SBS ~ ~ I
O
~
LppIKCYh'1'Ud'S'9 (1
S
NOUII iNIUl13l13N11VU \ - - c
N
r ~

/ 39Ny`iJ:D 36t 9r 'fi
YbO ~U •SQ~
In M1SMIS[GJ-9.I +R -(i'U
fIJMI111J 1511dtlN \'INUU3Jtll"I ~ G i
R
',~,y ~x+,
S
a
~~~
~s
~`~~
'N ~a
~E
i~
l
!
1~ 2~ y
~€€~

{/11 /

1

I
1
~ 3„4£ S£.99N 3 Ob,fZ.B9IT 3 gZ
Ob
SB
,
.
S
$ 8
\ ~~ ~ ~
\ \ ag o
U ~~
S=
W~ o~
,\
\
\.
\.
\\
,~ \\•ss
~, a
.p\ 'e:
a SH\ cy'`
\ o
\ ~ ~~''