20140286 Ver 1_401 Application_20140314

i I 0 C
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR— Wetlands and Storm Water Branch
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
Date: 3/19/2014
CWS Project #: 2013 -3253
MAR24 2014
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen Please find attached five copies of the Preconstruction Notification and application for
Water Quality Certification 3890 for the Ravenscroft Subdivision in Mint Hill, NC. A check for the application fee is also
attached.
Copy to: File
Thank &Ld
"�# Thomas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
E
°
° °
1
3/19/14
5
Application for Water Quality Certification
2
3/19/14
1
Application Fee Check ($570)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen Please find attached five copies of the Preconstruction Notification and application for
Water Quality Certification 3890 for the Ravenscroft Subdivision in Mint Hill, NC. A check for the application fee is also
attached.
Copy to: File
Thank &Ld
"�# Thomas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

is
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following:info:
1. Project Name Ravenscroft Subdivision
2-. Name,of Property Owner /°Applicant: The Ryland Group, Inc'., POC: Mr: Tom Kutz
3. Name of Consultant/Agent Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. Mr. Thomas Blackwell, PWS
*Agenvauthorization needs to be attached.
4. Rela't'ed 1PreviousAcfion,1D number(s): 'SAW'_12006- 41.424 -361; SAW - 2007591 -360'
5. Site Address: located on the northwest side, of Margaret'Wallace Road opposite of the intersection
with Joseph Drive.and,northeast of Stoney Glen Drive 'in.Mint Hill, North Carolina
6. Subdivision Name: , Ravenscroft
7._ City: Town of Mint.Hill
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: N35.181142° Long: W80.7066860 _ (Decimal Degrees Please)
1`0: Quadrangle Name: Mint .Hill, NC, dated 1996.
11. Waterway: UT,s to McAlpine Creek
12. Watershed: Santee (HU# 030504'03)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit# 29
`General Permit;#
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will'be completed by Coips "office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder' Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 'S'eciion 4:04
Project.Description/Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site /Waters Name:
Keywor&

L
y CWS
Carolina Welland Services
March 19, 2014
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704 - 527 -1177 (v)
704 - 527- 1133(fax)
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Ms. Karen Higgins
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Compliance and Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
20 1 40 286
MAR 2 4 2014
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Request
for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Water Quality Certification No. 3890
Ravenscroft Subdivision
Mint Hill, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2013 -3253
The Ravenscroft Subdivision is approximately 62 acres in extent and is located on the northwest side of
Margaret Wallace Road opposite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and northeast of Stoney Glen
Drive in Mint Hill, North Carolina (Figure 1, attached). The purpose of this project is to complete the
residential subdivision. The Ryland Group Inc., has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to
provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project.
Applicant Name: The Ryland Group, Inc.; POC: Mr. Tom Kutz
Mailing Address: 3600 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: 704 - 972 -4501
Street Address of Project: along Margaret Wallace Road, Mint Hill, NC
Waterway: UT to McAlpine Creek
Basin: Santee (HUC # 03050103)
City: Mint Hill
County: Mecklenburg County
Tax Parcel ID Numbers: 13515102 and 1315103
Decimal Degree Location of Project: N35.181142% W80.706686°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Mint Hill, North Carolina, 1996
Current Land Use
The current land use for the project area is wooded with adjacent residential developments and utility line
right -of -ways. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists of loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), flowering
dogwood (Corpus Florida), red maple (Acer rubrum), winged elm (Ulmus alata), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and catbriar (Smilax rotundifolia).
CHARLOTTE ' COLUMBIA ' RALEIGH
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Nationwide Permit No. 29 Request for Verification March 19, 2014
Ravenscroft Subdivision. CWS Project No: 2013 -3253
According'to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County' (Figures 2 and 3, attached),'on -site soils consist= of
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 -,8 percent slopes (CeB2), Cecil sandy clay loam, 8-15 percent slopes,(CeD2),
Enon sandy loam, 2 -8 percent.slopes (EnB), Helena sandy loam, 2 -8 percent- slopes-(HeB) and Pacol'et
sandy loam, 15 `25,percent slopes (PaE). Cecil soils, Enon soils,, and Pacolet soils are,al'l Well drained
soils,and Helena soils are moderafely-well drained soils. Helena sandy loam, 2- S"percent slopes,(HeB) is
listedeas having hydric inclusions (bydric criteria 2B3, 4) on the North Carolina Hydric Soils.Listfor'
Mecklenburg County2,and on the National Hydric Soils List.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On' February 0, 2006, CWS scientist Craig R. Wyant delineated (flagged in the field), classified; and
surveyed using a sub -meter capable GPS unit, on -site jurisdictional waters of the U:S. within the project
area. Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the U.S.Army Corps•of Engineers (USAGE) Routine On-
Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the .11987 987 Corps, of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation.,Manual4. Ybrification froth the USACE wa& received later that;year,(SAW- 2006 - 41424
361_)._
On December Tl, 2013, CWS scientists Thomas Blackwell, Professional Wetland: Scientist (PWS) and
Kelly Thames; Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT), re- reviewed the project area to, update and
classify on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project- area,according to the current °guidance.
Jurisdictional areas were delineated using ,'the U.S..Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On -Site
Determination Method. This method is.defined in'the 1987 Corps of,Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
the 200,7 - USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebooks, with further technical guidance
froth1he- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont.Regional Supplement,, dated:April 2012. A Wetland Determination
DataTorm representative oftion jurisdictional upland areas is attached'(DP1). The location of this data,point is
Iidentified,as DPI onTigure -4 (attached).
Jurisdictional stream channels were reviewed and classified according to ^recent USACE and North °Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) guidance. Updated NCDWR,Stream Classification Forms and
USACE`Stream Quality Assessment Forins representative of Streams A, B, C, and D are attached (SCP1 to
SCP6). The-locations of these classification points are identified as SCPl to SCP6 on Figure 4 (attached).
'Results
'The,results of'the`on -site field investigation conducted by CWS`indicate that there are four.jurisdictional
stream,channels located within the property (Figure 4,,attached). On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
include unnamed tributaries to McAlpine Creek. McAlpine Creek;is within the Catawba River basin,
(HU #,03050103)' and is classified as "Crass C7' waters by the NCDWR. On- Sit'e,jurisdictional features
total approximately 0.458 acres. On -Site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1 below.
United States Department'of Agriculture, 2012 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Z United States, Department of;Agnculture -Natural ReSOUlCes'Conservatlon Services, 2012 North Carolina'Hydnc Sods List;.USDA -NRCS
North Carolina State,Office, Raleigh,
3 United States'Department ofAgnculture– 'Natural ResourcmConservation Services,,-261f. 2012'National Hydric.Soils List by State-
° Environm`ental Laboratory 1982 "Corps of; Engi _neers,,Wetl' ands 'Delineation Manual ",'Techmcal,Report'Y -87 -1i US Army, Engineer
Waterways.Expenment Station, Vicksburg„ Mississippi.
5 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional, Guidebook 2007 'USACE Regulatory National,Standard:Operation Procedures for
conductmg.an approved jurisdictional determination QP) and documenting, practices to,support arrapproved JD. USACE'Headquarters,
Washington, DC
'US Army Corps of Engineers. April 2012. Regional 'Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Eastern, Mountains
and Piedmont Region US Army Engmeer'Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
' "HU # ",is the Hydrologic-Unit Code U S Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit-Map, State.of North Carolina.

Nationwide Permit No. 29 Request,for'Verification March 19, 2014
Ravenscroft Subdivision CWS Proiect,No. 2013 -3253
1able,1 , Summary of On- Site.Jurisdictional Waters
Project History
Previously Permitted Impacts,to,Jurisdictional Waters
A permit was issued for -this project, oriFebruary 28, 2007,($AW- 2007 -591, -360). This. permit has now
expired. This project was partially completed while the permit was valid, however one permitted culvert
impact was not completed. Impacts permitted under the',previous permit are discussed below and.are
summarized in Table 2.
Nationwide Permit No. 12
Under Nationwide Permit'No. '12 unavoidable impacts.to on -site jurisdictional.stream channels totaled
approximately 20 linear`feet (Figure '5, attached). These impacts were completed while the permitwas valid.
The channeNs associated with these sewercrossing-impacts have beerixestored to,their natural conditions and
are considered'temporary impacts.
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Oualitv Certification No. 3402
Under Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3402, unavoidable impacts to on -site
jurisdictional waters totaled approximately 376.48 linear feet. A total of 326.5 linear feet of these impacts
were completed while'the permit was`valid. These impacts included 78.48 linear feet of,culvert impacts and
248 linear feet of filLimpacts (Figure 5, attached). Under the,regulations, in place at the time, the 248 linear
feet'ofimpacts associated with Uhimportant,Intermittent [Seasonal RPW] Stream.A and 78.48 linear feet of
impacts associated with Important,Intertmitteni'[Seasonal RPW] °Stream A were considered,non- mitigatable.
Due to the economic conditions at the'time, the proposed 50 linear feet of-culvert impact'to Important
Intermittent [Seasonal RPW] Stream D'was not,completed.
110assifications�include Traditionally NavigabWWater'(TNW), Relativelyt Permanent Water ( RPW) „and.Non - Relatively Permanent ,,Water +(Non -
RPW).
Jurisdiction
_
NCDW I
USAGE Stream
Approx.
Approx
Jurisdictional
IS ACS %E'PA
SCP
Stream
Quality
Length
r�crea e
g
Feature
Rapanos
Intermittent/
Classification
Assessment
Liriear
(ac.)
Classification$
perennial
Score
Score
Feet (If)
Seasonal RPW
Unimportant
SCP1
19.5'
38
331
0.03
Intermittent
Stream A
Seasonal RPW
Important
SCP2
27.5
51
1,048
0.09
Intermittent
Perennial RPW
Perennial
SCP3
36
59
1,030
0.14
'Stream B
Seasonal RPW
Unimportant.
SCP4�
20
25
94
0.008
-
Intermittent
Stream
Seasonal RPW
Important
SCP5
25
39
247
0.03
,C
Intermittent
Stream D
Seasonal RPW
Unimportant
SCP6
26
44
1,230
0:16
--
Intermittent
Stream Total
3,980 if
0.458 ac
Project History
Previously Permitted Impacts,to,Jurisdictional Waters
A permit was issued for -this project, oriFebruary 28, 2007,($AW- 2007 -591, -360). This. permit has now
expired. This project was partially completed while the permit was valid, however one permitted culvert
impact was not completed. Impacts permitted under the',previous permit are discussed below and.are
summarized in Table 2.
Nationwide Permit No. 12
Under Nationwide Permit'No. '12 unavoidable impacts.to on -site jurisdictional.stream channels totaled
approximately 20 linear`feet (Figure '5, attached). These impacts were completed while the permitwas valid.
The channeNs associated with these sewercrossing-impacts have beerixestored to,their natural conditions and
are considered'temporary impacts.
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Oualitv Certification No. 3402
Under Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Quality Certification No. 3402, unavoidable impacts to on -site
jurisdictional waters totaled approximately 376.48 linear feet. A total of 326.5 linear feet of these impacts
were completed while'the permit was`valid. These impacts included 78.48 linear feet of,culvert impacts and
248 linear feet of filLimpacts (Figure 5, attached). Under the,regulations, in place at the time, the 248 linear
feet'ofimpacts associated with Uhimportant,Intermittent [Seasonal RPW] Stream.A and 78.48 linear feet of
impacts associated with Important,Intertmitteni'[Seasonal RPW] °Stream A were considered,non- mitigatable.
Due to the economic conditions at the'time, the proposed 50 linear feet of-culvert impact'to Important
Intermittent [Seasonal RPW] Stream D'was not,completed.
110assifications�include Traditionally NavigabWWater'(TNW), Relativelyt Permanent Water ( RPW) „and.Non - Relatively Permanent ,,Water +(Non -
RPW).

Nationwide Permit No. 29 Request for Verification March,19, 2014
Ravenscroft Subdivision CWS Proiect No. 2013- 3253',
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
Metter was. forwarded to the'State Historic Preservation,Office (SHPO) on November 1,2, 2006 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be
affected by the project, A letter from SHPO in responserto,theArequest, dated.January'l2, 2007 stated that-
there is one archaeological site within the project area. A follow -up call to SHPO, indicated that this site
was identified'in 1988 and has',not been qualified for eligibility
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded, to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
December 12,,2006 to determine the presence of any federally- listed, candidate'endangered, threatened
species or critical habitat located within'the project.area. A letter dated December 18,2006 was received
from the NCNHP stating that the program has "no record of rare species; significant.natural communities,
or significant natural heritage areas, at the site nor within a mile of the, project area'."
Purpose and Need, for the.Project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 62 acres of,property into a residential subdivision
containing 10010ts. This project will - complete this, subdivision to provide,single- family housing to meet

Nationwide Permit No.,29 Request for Verification March 19, 2014
Ravenscroft,Subdivision CWS- Project No. 2013 -3253
the growth and demand of an.area of Mecklenburg County that is experiencing significant population
growth. Impacts to on- site, jurisdictional waters are necessary to construct roadway access to ,existing
infrastructure.
Installing a road crossing is necessary for site access to complete the development. Moreover, the
proposed crossing °wasAesi'gned to function with the already completed road crossing and site topography
(Figures 5 and 6).
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S: have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The,completed roads within the subdivision as well,as,"the already completed impacts from the previously
authorized permit will tie in to the,proposed road crossing (Figure 6, attached). Proper sediment and
erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances todownstreain waters. Construction
activities and impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters associated with the proposed road crossing will
comply withal] conditions ofNWP`29., All work -will be constructed inthe dry in.accordance with Water'
Quality Certification No. 3890.
For the entire project, road crossings were limited to two road crossings, including the proposed crossing
and rip rap aprons for'the existing . crossing in this application, and sewe_r'impacts'were designed to cross
streams at.a,near perpendicular angle. All undisturbed stream segments will be buffered to the<greatest
extent possible on both sides and preserved in common.open space.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional.Waters
Unavoidable�permanent impacts associated with the construction to complete the second phase of the
Ravenscroft subdivision include rip-rap aprons impacting.57.5 linear feet of Seasonal RPW,Stream A and_a
road crossing-impacting 130 linear- feet of Seasonal RPW Stream D (Figures 7 and 8, attached).
The road crossing impacting Seasonal RPW [Important Intermittent] Stream A that was previously
completed included only the, culvert; Riprap aprons „now,need to -be installed on the upstream and
downstream ends to dissipate flows': A total of 57.5 linear feet of rip rap,apron is proposed, which includes
10 linearfeet-of rip rap on,the upstream,end of the,existing culvert and 47.5.1inear'feet of.rip rap•on the
downstream end ofthe existing culvert (Figures 7 and 8, attached).
Proposed impacts to Seasonal RPW Stream D include 83 linear feet of culvert impact. A total of 47 linear
feet of rip rap apron is proposed, which includes 1,0 linear feet of rip rap on-the upstream end of the culvert
and 37 linear feet of rip rap on the downstream end of the culvert (Figures T and 8, attached). The proposed
rip rap aprons are necessary to dissipate flows entering and exiting the culvert. Photographs A and” B
(attached) are representative.of the approximate location of the proposed road crossing.
Impacts to jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 3 below,. Total cumulative impacts to jurisdictional
waters are summarized in'Tabl'e 4 below.

Nationwide Permit No. 29 Request for Verification March 19, 2014
RavenscroftaSubdivision CWS Proiect No. 2013 =3253'
Table 3:, Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
- -
,Sewer Crossing
4 If
_Permanent
Jurisdictional Feature
Type of
Perennial RPW Stream A
Temporar In acts
a c ts' Iinear
=
Impact
SAW -2007-
(linear °feet)
;3 feet
SeasonaI,RPW Stream:A
RipRap
Yes
-
'57.5`lf
Sewer Crossing
Culvert
-
-
83 If
Seasonal -ROW Stream D
Sewer. Crossing
4 If
-
Yes
Rip Rap
Culvert
-
47 if
Yes
TotaHm acts
188-if
-
Total Permanent'Im acts
1881f
Table 4. Summary of Cumulative
Perennial RPW'Stream A
,Sewer Crossing
4 If
=
Yes
Perennial RPW Stream A
Sewer'Crossing
4 if
=
Yes
SAW -2007-
Seasonal RPW Stream A
Sewer Crossing
4 If
-
Yes
591 -360
Seasonal RPW'Stre'am C
Sewer Crossing
4 if
-
Yes
Seasonal RPW Stream D
Sewer. Crossing
4 If
-
Yes
Seasonal RPW Stream.A
Culvert
-
78.481f
Yes
Rip Rap
-
57.5
No
=
Proposed
Seasonal RPW Stream D
Culvert
-
83' If
No
P_ roposed
Rip,Rap
-
47'
No
Proposed
On behalf of The Ryland Group Inc., CWS is submitting a-Pre- Construction Notification Application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition.No. 31 and pursuant to Nationwide
Permit (NWP) No. 29 (attached).
Compensatory Mitigation
Impacts to Seasonal RPW [Important,Intermittent], Stream A were completed in,2007 and are
grandfathered under NCDWR rules as,mitigation was not required for, these, stream classifications when
the impacts were made. These impacts should,not be considered cumulatively for mitigation purposes.
Mitigatable impacts to, jurisdictional waters,of the U.S. total 188 linear feet.of intermittent_ stream channel. As
there are:no,private mitigation banks within the same 8-digit hydrologic unit code, our client has applied'for
mitigation credits from the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement,Program ( NCEEP)., Since, all impacts are
to. intermittent streams, a 1:1 mitigation ratio will apply. A copy of the NCEEP conditional acceptance letter is
attached.

I L
Nationwide Permit No. 29 Requestafor'Wrification March,19, 2014
Ravensc "soft Subdivision CWS Project No. 2013 -3253
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704 - 527 -1.177 or through email at tom @cws- inc.net should _you
have any questions -or comments regarding these findings.
&L4
'omas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
KelC hames, WPIT
StaffiScientist II
Enclosures:, Figure, 1. USGS Site.Location Map,
Figure 2. Current NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 3. Historic NRCS Mecklenburg County Soils Survey
Figure 4. Approximately Jurisdictional Boundary Map
Figure 5. Previously Permitted and Completed Impacts
Figure 6. Proposed Impacts
Figure 7. Proposed Impacts— Plan View
Figure 8. Proposed Impacts — Profile View
Agent Certification.of Authorization Form
Request for Jurisdictional Determination, Form
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to a NWP Nb -29
NCDWR Stream Classi'ficafion Forms (SCPI to,SCPS)
USACE.Stream Quality Assessment Forms SCPI to SCP6)
USAGE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (Upland DP 1)
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
WEEP Mitigation Conditional Acceptance Letter
Representative Photographs
cc: Mr.. Tom Kufz, The Ryland Group, Inc.
Mr. Brad Cardwell, The Ryland Group Inc.

,/.
IM-0 -1
EnB -
4
v�
CeB2 CeB2
02
MO�
CeB2
Ad
Idlewild Road
c ��n CeD
CeB2 -
UL HeB C
M e B
Lawyers Road
tiI e B
M0
CeD2 CeD2 �,
CeD2 CeD2
0
PP a�
CeB2
CeD2
�Q 1
EnB
I
1
CeD2
_CeB 2
i;
W Cet32
Margaret Wallace Road
is
WkD EnB CeD2 a) : - --
Soils - Description
CeB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 -8% slopes, eroded Legend
CeD2 - Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 -15% slopes, eroded ' g
EnB - Enon sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes CeD2
i HeB - Helena sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes C Project Limits
\ PaE - Pacolet sandy loam, 15 -25% slopes o (,
nB 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet I
j REFERENCE: HISTORIC NRCS -USDA SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, SHEET 8, DATED 1977.
/ e nD
FIGURE NO. Historic NRCS-USDA Soil Survey SCALE 1n 1'000, DATE
'� 12/10/13
of Mecklenburg CountyI CM PROJECT NO DRAWN BY
RmenscroftSubdivision �/ CWS 2013 -3253 KMT
3 Mint Ilill, North Carolina =� on�awee�wse�s APPLICANT NO'. CHECKED BY
CWS Project No. 2013 -3253 WWW.CWS- INC.NET TJ B

Legend
O a Project Limits
3 Perennial RPW
- -••• Seasonal RPW (formerly Important Intermittent)
o.
Seasonal RPW (formerly Unimportant Intermittent)
Buildings
r�r
t d - Parcels
Q Roads
O N
� ✓""1 Topography
♦ SC P Stream Classification Point
0 h
0 DP Routine Data Point
o V �
Perennial RPW Stream A Photo Location and Direction
(formerly Perennial Stream A)
approx. 1,030 LF O
O
Q
o p 1 Seasonal RPW Stream D
approx. 1, 230 LF
OSeasonal RPW Stream A
0 0 (formerly Unimportant Intermittent Stream A)
J, approx. 331 LF
O
v S CP3
era i S CP5 '• C Ivert
a
� o
��� ^�� • .• • DP 1 ° o
i i*SC
Seasonal RPW Stream C A
(formerly Important Intermittent Stream C) J'
approx. 247 LF
a Seasonal RPW Stream A r
(formerly Important Intermittent Stream A)
approx 1,048 LF Q °
Seasonal RPW Stream B
(formerly Unimportant Intermittent Stream B)
approx. 94 LF
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED AND CLASSIFIED BY CWS, INC. IN
FEBRUARY 2006. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE (SAW - 2006-11424 -361).
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYERS PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, 500 250 0 500 Feet O
DATED 2009.
STREAM AND WETLAND LAYERS GENERATED BY CWS, INC., DATED DECEMBER 2013.
O r
FIGURE No. Approximate Jurisdictional SCALE: 1 DATE: 12/10/13
Boundary Map I CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY
Ravenscroft Subdivision ! ' / CWS 2013 -3253 KMT
4 Mint Hill, North Carolina APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY:
CWS Project No. 2013 -3253 WWW.CWS- INC.NET TJ B

i
4J
16?
'A�" F•. '' Sri
Q
E a#
4- n ,.
All,
L
ai
O
ul) CL
U L.
� U � I_ J,• F � ty „y_ •� r I
C
D >N
' J
19 a) � � C`.V• � L 1. % . _� r-..
}.+ 41 'Id Q Y \ v J
oo
/ Z
� .
CL
L L % I � 1 � a •, C
Q � r
! /
o N
} 00 I Z U I—
N r.lV !' �r_• id.o
CL
< a
L
L
° N
Lo
' 1
v
CL
CU
Ln
l r
fY. 0 1I
Cl
II
L i
3
Q
U1
Q 0
ct
L
N °
_ Q
cu
a
�
I I
£SZ£ I OZ 'ON »afo.id SMJ
eutlo.teDg )Jodi 'IM lullN
'JNI ',INVdV40J JNIdlINIJNJ d3MOd
uoisintpgnS }}oa-)sua;\ed
sliedwi polilduioD pue p011YU1.1ad XjsnoinaJd
4J
16?
'A�" F•. '' Sri
Q
E a#
4- n ,.
All,
L
ai
O
ul) CL
U L.
� U � I_ J,• F � ty „y_ •� r I
C
D >N
' J
19 a) � � C`.V• � L 1. % . _� r-..
}.+ 41 'Id Q Y \ v J
oo
/ Z
� .
CL
L L % I � 1 � a •, C
Q � r
! /
o N
} 00 I Z U I—
N r.lV !' �r_• id.o
CL
< a
L
L
° N
Lo
' 1
v
CL
CU
Ln
l r
fY. 0 1I
Cl
II
L i
3
Q
U1
Q 0
ct
L
N °
_ Q
cu
a
�
I I

loz *O.Ni 1,z)[Old SAND
ULUJOILID VOK 'IPH IUIA
-JNI 'ANVdV4OJ ONId33NION3 83MOd
U01SIAipqnS 1,4013SU3ALI-d
.01 1.1 INV.: !Yd
sjorduil posodoid
k. •
R11
.............
a
E
E
rA
cn
k. •

} N
m y
a
W
7 29
P 2
14,18 sq. R.
0.J3 acres
I
�I
i
``ll�LUUnprgO �
�
dUR
- y s �E
Wa3
mob
I 0 'ON 1 -DO10.ld SMJ
ON '311019V9O OS 'V19N0100
SHOA3Adns — S83NNVld — S833NION3
-'
lll�uu °npv
"l]G
UU110JUD LI1.I0K `Ij[II-] IM IN
ONI `,kNddWO0 ONIb33NION3 d3MOd
LS'669 90A9
\
r'. S
uotsintpgnS oaOSUant?d
SL "L£ +C :S3A3
\ \aln LILId - slOudLul paSOdO.Id
A8 03dVd3bd
7 29
P 2
14,18 sq. R.
0.J3 acres
I
�I
i
``ll�LUUnprgO �
�
dUR
- y s �E
Wa3
mob
N �
rrgnnlma`ll��
�§i3�R -•
lll�uu °npv
"l]G
a a
amp
R Z
W
LS'669 90A9
\
r'. S
Z4 969 33A3
SL "L£ +C :S3A3
rr "nnm alo�l
J�
� LL LL Q
O
i
U
=
lit
A "•r T
ggI� k
0
12.76
0.29
O
W
J
O`
W
'O^^
vJ
i'
rn R
U
5 i a
d R V
a -
LS
2=
O >:
�N
W
4
cn
h
9['699 : aA3 p �
n m - IL0'069 = �'
N F ZL'L9 +S :'0A3 4'699 h�
n u n Y 90'[69 a II
>
9'069
N 'd ' II b
l 'l69 :3W 9L'L69 W
S < _ 9169 e
a 99 1 +S Salle 92'289 H
C'Z69
9'269
6L 169
£ £69
=b 4'£69
y 9L'469
\ {69
I O Z'669
I
i - — -- -- - -/ - __� —- 90'969 _
f i R b -S 69
00.969
f'969
° �L'969
x�b
N tl r 46'96930A3 6'969
u S'L6a
9004 +Z �S3AB
N W o I .
5 5 < I I 1'969
--
LO'B69
9'969
« 9'969
n In
42'669
2'969
/ ['969
/ LYOOL
0'0 L
o ^� 00'LOL 30A3
u L F '14tra3 3 V IOL
Y Z'Z0L
a i
b'ZOL q
LZZOL
d f'ZOL
T
� I
'L LA
IOV COIL VIS [Ad
rtl. 94'99 +L ;S0M \
II ^ tl I \
F .-
u
Z Z N w C
a u n
_ 42'469 :33A9 \
._ 9Lr99 +9 :S3M, 1
i
[669 /3aA3
I
I
I I �
I
I
+
mob
N �
_
2 yl li0
�SS<
L�5 a a
W W
R Z
W
LS'669 90A9
\
-
9009 +£53A9.
Z4 969 33A3
SL "L£ +C :S3A3
N N I
OI
4 Vi W
� LL LL Q
12.76
0.29
O
W
J
O`
W
'O^^
vJ
i'
rn R
U
5 i a
d R V
a -
LS
2=
O >:
�N
W
4
cn
h
9['699 : aA3 p �
n m - IL0'069 = �'
N F ZL'L9 +S :'0A3 4'699 h�
n u n Y 90'[69 a II
>
9'069
N 'd ' II b
l 'l69 :3W 9L'L69 W
S < _ 9169 e
a 99 1 +S Salle 92'289 H
C'Z69
9'269
6L 169
£ £69
=b 4'£69
y 9L'469
\ {69
I O Z'669
I
i - — -- -- - -/ - __� —- 90'969 _
f i R b -S 69
00.969
f'969
° �L'969
x�b
N tl r 46'96930A3 6'969
u S'L6a
9004 +Z �S3AB
N W o I .
5 5 < I I 1'969
--
LO'B69
9'969
« 9'969
n In
42'669
2'969
/ ['969
/ LYOOL
0'0 L
o ^� 00'LOL 30A3
u L F '14tra3 3 V IOL
Y Z'Z0L
a i
b'ZOL q
LZZOL
d f'ZOL
T
� I
'L LA
IOV COIL VIS [Ad
rtl. 94'99 +L ;S0M \
II ^ tl I \
F .-
u
Z Z N w C
a u n
_ 42'469 :33A9 \
._ 9Lr99 +9 :S3M, 1
i
[669 /3aA3
<
IS9
0' 1 l669
L9 "L69
__ - -- -6699
CVZ69
['999
S9'Z69
S'LB9
49'C69
£'999
90'969
9'499
d3N at
_ 999
991.69
Z'969
L'40L
50'00[
f 90L
Z0'L0L
9'90L
2 y we
W LO'ZOL
J
VOL
0 4020E
OWL
W 9L'L0L
2 9'ZOL
O, LO L
lOL
r~r^^ SZ'00L
vJ {'669
90'669
IL69
49'L69
{'469
06969
4' 169
LZ 969
6999
4069
WIN
0'469
{'969
[Tool
S "LOL
0 COL
LCZOL
( C'fOL
640[
LZ'COL
{790L
m
I
I
+
mob
N �
_
2 yl li0
�SS<
L�5 a a
\
LS'669 90A9
\
-
9009 +£53A9.
Z4 969 33A3
SL "L£ +C :S3A3
N N I
OI
A "•r T
N W II N
Z
2 yi w p Y
�a55� I
<
IS9
0' 1 l669
L9 "L69
__ - -- -6699
CVZ69
['999
S9'Z69
S'LB9
49'C69
£'999
90'969
9'499
d3N at
_ 999
991.69
Z'969
L'40L
50'00[
f 90L
Z0'L0L
9'90L
2 y we
W LO'ZOL
J
VOL
0 4020E
OWL
W 9L'L0L
2 9'ZOL
O, LO L
lOL
r~r^^ SZ'00L
vJ {'669
90'669
IL69
49'L69
{'469
06969
4' 169
LZ 969
6999
4069
WIN
0'469
{'969
[Tool
S "LOL
0 COL
LCZOL
( C'fOL
640[
LZ'COL
{790L

}
m;
w
£9Z£-£10Z '0M PafOId SMD
ON '3LL0111 -3 0s 'V19N11100
W
r,
UU110I93 14110 j iili j 1U1W
SSOA3Adns — S83NNVld — S833NION3
8"
�
'0N1 6ANbdW00 0NId33N10N3 d3MOd
(j
uoisinipgnS }�orosuanea
.
m-11A i1pid - sjaiedwi pasodoad
1
xe a38Vd3ad
8 99 L99 Uro
1 99199 :W9�
11111/'
NOIfb7
Q
LL +1 !
3]8/g0 9r-0
..
�k
01
O rr9 / +l -Is
!' ls
I,
a « -as
�
(�
U 90'969 :MM
u 9 nro •W
D_
i
e, er -9s J
a
u .' 969 t I
I ,/ .6(69 �
"W
•w
»Yrn9
I
9+1 Lsa -9Ud'
I
Y
d
J
~
it 00 [6
£9Z£-£10Z '0M PafOId SMD
ON '3LL0111 -3 0s 'V19N11100
W
r,
UU110I93 14110 j iili j 1U1W
SSOA3Adns — S83NNVld — S833NION3
8"
�
'0N1 6ANbdW00 0NId33N10N3 d3MOd
(j
uoisinipgnS }�orosuanea
.
m-11A i1pid - sjaiedwi pasodoad
1
xe a38Vd3ad
I
Y
d
J
~
it 00 [6
I
99 :l,bV
U Ltl 9 tiW
W
w KI . ,s
sc -os-
N w tf `'�y h :f
h
8"
�
h 2 b WN
a r, to
u 9r969 .ro
?bl
•W
J
8 99 L99 Uro
1 99199 :W9�
11111/'
NOIfb7
Q
LL +1 !
3]8/g0 9r-0
..
�k
01
O rr9 / +l -Is
!' ls
I,
a « -as
(�
U 90'969 :MM
u 9 nro •W
D_
i
e, er -9s J
- i -- - - - - -- — - -; _ A--
I I I
0
Uf}
h u�F
099[9 aro •W
a a9+9 =s
RYg`
I�r
c 3
y Q
a
� N
J O
O yam,
I � 3
�L
Q
ca-
m E
CU
Q a 3
sr
E
y c-
tl
o cn
G N
O N >
m
N
I 1
00
I
111111 //� x U n N h
K
.......... ....,9ti'.
. JJ
N w tf `'�y h :f
h
8"
�
h 2 b WN
a r, to
u 9r969 .ro
?bl
•W
o`er
I
11111/'
NOIfb7
u w
:os
..
�k
9
i
I
w
u .' 969 t I
I ,/ .6(69 �
"W
•w
»Yrn9
I
9+1 Lsa -9Ud'
la
u rr +r
:as
in
k
J
I
,/ 08'969
1
k
I
arm
o
�n
S N
!/ 09669
'.
v uro
w
5
8
t'9B9
R v
J/
'169 71YMOY
O
e0
u eox69 a
U 6rY69 '
'989
0
U 90 +1
:v,s
�d
0'989
!1)YMOY3N t5Y0
8Ud 91$
�$ $
D \
u 09999 :Iro
.0
J/ LrY'69 :N
"ul
1
P
- i -- - - - - -- — - -; _ A--
I I I
0
Uf}
h u�F
099[9 aro •W
a a9+9 =s
RYg`
I�r
c 3
y Q
a
� N
J O
O yam,
I � 3
�L
Q
ca-
m E
CU
Q a 3
sr
E
y c-
tl
o cn
G N
O N >
m
N
I 1
00
E
V
C
M .r-
00 O
� L
Q.
U �
E Q
0 o
3 �a
�- CL a.
0 0
=LL. Ll-
I 1
111111 //� x U n N h
.......... ....,9ti'.
. JJ
N w tf `'�y h :f
h
8"
�
h 2 b WN
y?lW
K
o`er
I
11111/'
NOIfb7
W
2
..
�k
E
V
C
M .r-
00 O
� L
Q.
U �
E Q
0 o
3 �a
�- CL a.
0 0
=LL. Ll-
I 1
S'889
�k
0
i
BB9
»Yrn9
I
9+1 Lsa -9Ud'
la
/
in
k
0 BB9
,/ 08'969
-as
k
I
arm
o
�n
S N
!/ 09669
'.
v uro
w
5
8
t'9B9
R v
J/
'169 71YMOY
O
e0
'989
0
�d
0'989
!1)YMOY3N t5Y0
8Ud 91$
�$ $
D \
0'989
0
I
ra9v aro uv
U 06'699
T'Nx0Y3U 15
W
0799 W
-.PM 69-05
�
I
�
� A
�8
E
V
C
M .r-
00 O
� L
Q.
U �
E Q
0 o
3 �a
�- CL a.
0 0
=LL. Ll-
I 1

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION-
I, Mn Tom Kutz, representing The Ryland Group, Inc.,'hereby:certify that d have
authorized Thomas Blackwell and Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my'behalf
and take all actions necessary to theprocessing, issuance, and acceptance of this request
for wetlands determination/ perm- mitting ,and any and, all, standard,. and special ,conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above'informationsubmitted' in this application is true, +and
accurate to -the best,of our knowledge.
75�' -
ApplicarQ signature
Date
­L�� 4�Ld
AgenCs signature
3/19/2014
Date
Completion of'this form will allow the agent,to sign allifuture applicationcorrespondence.
nu'z-j

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: March 19, 2014
COUNTY Mecklenburg County, North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE-OF TRACT 62 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Ravenscroft.Subdivision
PROPERTY OWNERIAPPLICANT (name, address and phone):
The Ryland Group; Inc,
POC: Mr. Tom Kutz at 704 -972 -4501
3600 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina WetlandServices, Inc.
POC:,.Mr. Thomas Blackwell, PWS
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC28273,
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On -going site work for development purposes
( X ) Project in,planning stages
(Type of project:_)
( ) No specifc developmentplanned arpresent
( ) Project.al'ready completed
(Type of project:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information ,as `is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X') Figure 1. USGS 7.5- Minute Mint Hill; NC Topographic.Quadrangles,.dated 1996
(X) Figures '2 and.3. NRCS Mecklenburg�County,Soil,,Suryeys
(X ) Figure'4. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field: Map-Overview
( X) Figures.5=8. Proposed Impact Figures
(X) NCDWQ Stream ,Cl'assifcation.Form,(SCPI to�SCP6)
(X')' USACE`Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1 to SCP6)
(X) Routine�On -Site Data Form (DPI)
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized 'A Gent
Mr. Thomas Blackwell, PWS

1 1
I �j,� l
WjATF�9OG
1 IL..J_uJ`J�r -i
o Niiii� <
20140286
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ❑ No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
p �
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
® Yes
❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
The Ryland Group, Inc.
3b.
2a
Name of ro'ect
Ravenscroft Subdivision --
-
Mr. Tom Kutz
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
p �
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg County
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Mint HIII
2d.
Subdivision name:
Ravenscroft
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
The Ryland Group, Inc.
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
27468 -585, 26393 -187
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mr. Tom Kutz
3d.
Street address:
3600 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 200
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
3f.
Telephone no.:
704 - 972 -4501
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D)E LCyE#ILUE�111
- - -.
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

& Applicant Information' (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Owner
4b. Name:
Mr. Tom Kutz
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
The Ryland Group, Inc.
4d. Street address:
3600 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 200
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
4f. Telephone,no.:
704 -972 -4501
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
S. Agent/Consultant Information (if,applicable)
5a. Name:
Tom.Blackwell', PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland.Services,'Inc.
5c. Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
'5d. City„ stat'e;,zip:
Charlotte, NC28273
5e. Telephone no.:
704 - 527 -1177
5f. Faz.no.:
704, -527 -1133
5g. Email address:
tom @cws- inc.net
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. identification'no. (tax PIN or °parcel ID):
13515103, 1,351,5102, 13515271,, 135452014'35152.12,.
,Property
13515234=1.351'5270
Latitude: N35.1811420 Longitude:
1-b-. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
1
W80.7066860
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. 'P'roperty size�.�
62,acres
2: Surface Waters
'2a. Name of nearest body-of water (stream, river, etc.) to
McAlpine Creek
proposed project:
'Water'Quality Classification of ^nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Santee (HU# 03050103)
3. Project Description
,3a. Describe tFie.existing conditions on -the - site and the general, land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:,
The site is approximately, 62 acres in extent: The current land use for the project area is wooded with adjacent residential
developments and utility line right -of -ways. Dominant vegetation withimthe project area consists of loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera); sweetgum (L'iquidambar styraciflua), flowering dogwood '(Cornus florida), red
maple (Aces rubrum), winged elm (Ulmus alata), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana); Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera,japonica),, and catbriar (Smilax.rotundifolia).
3b. List,the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property,:
N/A
.3c. List the total estimated linear,feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1,030 If of perennial channel and 2,950;If of'intermittent`channel.
3d. Explain_the,purpose ofthe'proposed project:
The purpose of this project is'to develop approximately 62 acres of property into a residential subdivision containing 100 lots.
This project will complete this subdivision to provide single - family housing to meet the growth and demand of an area of
MecklenbUrg County that is experiencing significant population growth. Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters are
necessary to construct roadway access to existing infrastructure.
Installing a road crossing is necessary for-site access'to complete the development. Moreover, the proposed crossing was
designed -to function with-the already completed road crossing and site topography (Figures 5 and 6):
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type,of equipment to be used:
Installing a road crossing is necessary for 'site access to complete ^the development. Moreover; the proposed crossing
wasAesigned to function,with the4mady completed road'crossing•and site °topography (Figures Sand 6).
Aarack hoe and, other typical construction equipment will be used'to construct this project.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have Jurisdictional wetland or stream'determinations by the
Corps or, State been requested;br obtained for•this property'/
® ❑ No E] Unknown
Yes
project (including all'prior- phases) in'the.past?
Comments: JD verified in 2006 (SAW- 2006 - 4,1424 -361)-
4b. If the Corps• made.the'Jurisdictional determination, what type
E] Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made?
4ci Wyes, who delineated'the jurisdictional areas?
, Company: Carolina Wetland Services
Name (if'known): Craig Wyant
4d. If yes, list.the dates of the-Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
date unknown
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Project History
,5a. Have permits or,certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all, priorphases) in the past?
[]Yes ❑.No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according'to "help file" instructions.
A permit was issued for this project on February,28, 2007 (SAW -2007- 591 =360). This'permit has now expired. This
,project was partially completed while,the permit 'was valid,, however -one permitted, culvert ,impactwas'not completed.
6: Future Project Plans
6a. Is,thi's a phased project?
❑ Yes ;® No
6b. If-yes, explain.
Page 4of12
RCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts,$ummary
la. Which sections were completed below for your'project (check all•that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
(f°there are wetland impacts. proposed on )the,site,,then complete this,�q'uestion for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of,wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent,(P) or
(if 'known)
DWQ,— non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑'Yes
❑Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ .P ❑ T
❑Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
Yes
O_ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
1N5 El F11 T
❑`Yes
❑ Corps
'DWQ
❑ No
El
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland „impacts
2h. Comments-
3. Stream Impacts -
If there �are, perennial or intermittent stream'impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question fonall,stream sites'�impacted.
3a.
3b:
3c.
3d.
3e.-
3f.
3g.,
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of 'jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404,. 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Rip Rap
Seasonal RPW
Stream A
❑' PER
®' INT
®Corps
❑ DWQ
.4'
57.5''
S2 ®P ❑ T
Rip Rap
Seasonal RPW
Stream, D
❑ PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
4'
47'
S3 ® P ❑ T
CulVert
Seasonal RPW
Stream D
❑ PER
® INT
®, Corps
❑ DWQ
4'
83'
S4 ❑ P ❑ T'
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 [:1 P F-1 T'
❑'PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
A. Total stream and fribgtary'impacts
188 If
F omments: :7otal °permanent impact"s,include installing 57 51inear'feet of rip,rap associated With an existing culvert,and
g 83 linear feet of intermittent stream channel with 47 linear feet of rip rap aprons.
Page 5 of 12.
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. 'Open Water Impacts_
If there-are proposed impacts to lakes, pond's; estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other,open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of'impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P,) or
Temporary
01 ❑P ❑T
02, ❑ P,❑ T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5'g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. 'Method �of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete °fhe chart:below. Ifyes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation,- then you MUST fill out Section D of thi's form.
6a.
❑ Neuse E] Tar-Pamlico F1 Other:
Project is in which protected basin ?'
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number-
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact,
required?
131 ❑ P ❑ T
0 Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑. T
[J Yes'
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2098 Version

D. 'Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance,and Minimization
1a. • Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictionaiwaters of 'the U.S. have 'been reduced to the maximum exfent,practicable. The completed
roads within the subdivision as well as the already completed impacts from the previously,authorized permit'will'tie in to the
proposed road crossing {Figure 6; attached). Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances4o downstream waters. Construction activities and impacts °to on -site_ jurisdictional waters associated w,ith,the
proposed road crossing will comply with all conditions of NWP 29. All work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with
Water - Quality Certification No. 3890. .
For the, entire project, road crossings were limited to,two road crossings, including the proposed crossing and rip rap aprons
for the existing crossing in this,applicafion, and sewerimpacts were designed to+cros's streams'at a near perpendicular angle,
All undisturbed stream segments will be buffered to the greatest'extent-possible on both =sides and'preserved in common open
space.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the, proposed impacts through construcfion,techniques.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of -the U.S. have been reduced *to the maximum extent practicable. Proper sediment
,and erosion control measures will be used to m- inimize disturbances to downstream waters,.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.&. or Waters of the, State,
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters ofthe,U.S. or Waters ofthe State?
2b. If yes, mitigation -is required by (check all that, apply):
® DWQ '❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation "option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program •
project?
❑ P,ermittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if, Using, a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of.M'itigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if`Making a Payment to.In =lieu Fee'Peogram
4a. Approval letter'from in -lieu fee program is attached.
® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
188 linear feet,
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
® warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation ,requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Ripariamwetland mitigation requested:
'acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
;acres
4h. Comments:
& Complete if Using�a Perrriittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee. responsible, mitigation plan, provide a description ofthe proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State'Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) _ required by DWQ
6a. Will•the project result in an impact within.a protected riparian bufferthat requires
buffer mitigation?
❑'Yes ®'No,
�6b. If,yes, then identity the square,feet of'impact,to each,zone ofAhe,riparian buffer'that.requires mitigation. �Calculate:the
amount of'mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact,
6d.
Total impact
(square "feet)
Multiplier
6e,,
Required mitigation'
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5.
6f. Total buffer'mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e:g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment.into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10; 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow'P[art
1 a. Does the project include or is it!adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one,of the NC Riparian,Buffer'Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then'is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What,is'the overall, percent imperviousness of thisproject?
<.24 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Site plans; have been reviewd and
approved by Mecklenburg County, a designated local authority.
2d. If'this project DOES'require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the' plan:
® Certified' Local'Governmeht
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of'the Stormwater Management Plan?
E] DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government,Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction, is„this project?
Mecklenburg County
® Phase 11
3b. Which of the following,Iocally- implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management, Plan with proof'of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ,Stormwater Program Review_
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of-the following state_ implemented ',stormwatee',management, programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b: Has'the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval' been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ,401' Unit Stormwater, Review
5a: Does the Stormwater Management Plan meetthe appropriate requirements?
❑'Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met ?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9�of 1,2
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary 1'riformation
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ"Requirement),
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) fundsor,the
El Yes, ®No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1b: If you answered °yes "'to the above, does the project require preparation ofran
environmental document pursuant.to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) -Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes' to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (if so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement),
2a. Is thesite in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland :Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300)2 DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (1;5A NCAC 2R.0200)?
2b, is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. Ifyou answered "yes "' to one or both ofthe above questions, provide,an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ, Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably, anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No -
additional development, which could,iinpact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis -in accordance with,the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a single family residence project and will not result in additional future development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods,and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The project will tieJh to the existing'andiavailablia�city sewer.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 :December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species,and'Desighated Critical Habitat,(Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑•Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If =yes, indicate the�USFWS Field�Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whetheryour site would impact Endangered'Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A.letter was forwarded'to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP,), on. December 12', 2006'to determine1he
presence of'any federally- listed, candidate endangered, threatened species orcritical habitat located within the project
area. A letter dated December 18, 2006 was received from the NCNHP stating that the program has "no record of rare
species, significant natural communities,. or significant natural heritage areas at theasite nor within a mile of'the project
area ".
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur'in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What -data sources did you use to determine-whether your site would impactEssential Fish.Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http *Hsharpfin :nmfs. noaa. gov /website /EFH_Mapper /map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoeic,Cultural Resources, (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or-tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic- Trust designation or propertiessignificant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data,sources.did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letterwas forwarded to the, State Historic Preservation Office•(SHRO) on,November 12, 2006 to defermine'th -e
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that-would'.be affected'by the project-. A
letter °from SHPO in response to the request, dated January 12, 2007 stated that there is one archaeological site within
the project area: A follow -up -call to SHRO indicated that this,siie was identified in 1,988 and has not been qualified for
eligibility. Since a Section 404 PCN'verification wasspreviously issued,for'temporary construction impacts prior to receipt
of the letter from SHPO (Corps Action ID SAW- 2006 - 41424 - 361) ' it is'likely that the archaeological site no longer exists.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Wllahis project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes, ®• No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: .
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination ?' FEMA FIRM (# 3710.458200J and 37f0459200J) .
Mr. Tom Blackwell, PW'S'
3%19/14
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's `Signature
(Agent's signature is "valid ohly if.an authbnzation letter from the applicant
Page 11 of 12
PCK Form — Version 1,.3 December 10„ 2008 Version

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 171 11/11
Project/Site: fAWI A V 4
Latitude: u35. ) 4 I k Z 0
Evaluator: )J B +
County: Mt&KI U614(
Longitude: - 10keW,
Total Points:
Stream Determina ' QD (circle one)
Other S1yYaA41 A
Stream is at least intermittent ICJ
if z 19 or perennial if z 30' t
Ephemeral Int ml nt Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
12.Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
� PZ
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
No = 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
1
2
_
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
jC21
3
9. Grade control
0
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. HvdroloQv (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
3
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
3
1
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal= ,� )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 12,111113
Project/Site: �4 vw J va
Latitude: � 35. 191111 ) 11
4gb
Evaluator: R + WT
IJ
County: , l # i t,
!
Longitude: W §P ,
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent �j
Stream Deterrm (circle one)
Ephemeral I ermitt t Perennial
Other ' ff fe '1M tolill
Quad Name:
if Z 19 or perennial if >_ 30' p�
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
e.g.
I/I r-
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I P ) )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stro g
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3 11
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0 '
0.5
1
15
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No -
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
3 11
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
_
26. Wetland plants iii streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes.
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 17,1 it 1 1 3
Project/Site: f'aVWS yVm +
Latitude: N 3 S. !�/
Evaluator: -0 �
County: CQjV1 ��
Longitude: W , '%
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent (0
Stream Determination (circI )
enn'
Other
if a 19 or perennial if z 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent P I
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stro g
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
6
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
10
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
25. Algae
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
-Irk
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
P^
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
;1t
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes f3
C. Biology (Subtotal= 7 ;, )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
If
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
10
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �' (
Project/Site: 4 v &S c0 f+
Latitude: N S% (t l C
Evaluator: -p
County: M{
Longitude: �,
Total Points:
Scream is at least intermittent
Stream Determin gtiaA (circle one)
Other 5'1' Lit
if ? 19 or perennial if >_ 30' (/"
Ephemeral In mitts t Perennial
p
9
e. Quad Name: 5�
R r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ! )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
l'01
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool.
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
(%
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
No = 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
77
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
24. Amphibians
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 01
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated, see discu sions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
3
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
l'01
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3')
G. 13lologv (Subtotal= y, ) -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
M
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
05
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
77
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
5
1
1 5
26. Wetland plarits 'in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ' 2 `� �' 3
Project/Site: VMfe Vrf
Latitude:
Evaluator: '0 3
County: MtG (AMbA
Longitude: J1V* W61r_ �
• Of�
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other S it C,
if ? 19 or perennial if a 30' ��
Ephemeral I i e Perennial
p
e. Quad Name: S 5
9'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = tom, i )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
JZ1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes 3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
_
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolocly (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
n
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
C. Bioloqv (Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
31
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2_
-'
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants ire streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4 -11
Date: 12-1/t /1-3
Project/Site: V-VLV) Vts`►,y(}�+
Latitude: 06. 1 1 j 7 0
Evaluator: -1-3 1-3 , _ OAT
v ��+
County: �,e(/V- "jot!
Longitude:w'�j1,%1
b0
Total Points:
Steam is at least intermittent /J _�
;-
Stream Determin 'on (circle one)
Ephemeral Int t nt Perennial
Other < *rA Z'� D
e.g. Quad Name: l�
if _ 19 or perennial if? 30`
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1, )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str g
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes jlr3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
;
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1 %
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1;'
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
antticlal ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = 5,.
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes jlr3
U. bioiogV (subtotal = -r-
18. Fibrous roots in streambed '
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plaits in streamed
FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1 — Intermittent RPW Stream A
t STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �AQP
1. Applicant's Name: Ryland Homes, POC: Tom Kutz 2. Evaluator's Name:Thomas Blackwell, PWS & K. Thames, WPIT
3. Date of Evaluation: 12 -11 -13 4. Time of Evaluation: 1 P
5. Name of Stream: Unimportant Intermittent RPW Stream A 6. River Basin: Santee (HUC # 03050103)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 9 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 50 If 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located on the northwest side of Margaret Wallace
Road opposite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and northeast of Stoney Glen Drive in Mint Hill North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.181142', W80.706686'
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cool, sunny, 50s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: mild, sunnv. 50s
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 80 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
10 % Forested 10% Cleared / Logged % Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 4' -5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3'5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (> 10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight x Occasional Bends —Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 38 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature NtLW Date 12 -11 -13
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change – version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCPI — Intermittent RPW Stream A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 5
0-4
0 - 5
0
flow = max oits
no flow or saturation = 0; strop n
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
I
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
I
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max poi nts
a
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 — 4
0-4
1
U5
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
,..,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
1
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
a
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max p oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
�.
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
3
E-�
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
—
16
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
E�
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
C4
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
3
d
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
x
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
38
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY
1119-11
USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP2 — Intermittent RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -
1. Applicant's Name: Ryland Homes; POC: Tom Kutz 2. Evaluator's Name:Thomas Blackwell, PWS & K. Thames, WPIT
3. Date of Evaluation: 12 -11 -13 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30P
5. Name of Stream: Important Intermittent RPW Stream A 6. River Basin: Santee (HUC # 03050103)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 16 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 If 10. County: Mecklenburg
IL Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located on the northwest side of Margaret Wallace
Road opposite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and northeast of Stoney Glen Drive in Mint Hill, North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.181142% W80.706686'
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): n/a
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cool, sunny, 50s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: mild, sunny, 50s
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ED if yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ONO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 80 % Residential % Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
10 % Forested 10% Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 6' -8' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5' -12'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (> 10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight x Occasional Bends _ Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 51 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 12 -11 -13
This channel evaluation form is in ended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 — Intermittent RPW Stream A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 5
0-4
0 - 5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
d
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
p-
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max po ints
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max p oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
�.
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
a
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
3
H
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints
-
16
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Q18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
E
Evidence of wildlife use
0— 6
0— 5
0 -5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
51
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY
USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP3 — Perennial RPW Stream A
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Ryland Homes; POC: Tom Kutz 2. Evaluator's Name:Thomas Blackwell, PWS & K. Thames, WPIT
3. Date of Evaluation: 12 -11 -13 4. Time of Evaluation: 412
5. Name of Stream: Perennial RPW Stream A 6. River Basin: Santee HUC # 03050103
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 60 acres 8. Stream Order: 2nd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 200 If 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located on the northwest side of Margaret Wallace
Road opposite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and northeast of Stoney Glen Drive in Mint Hill North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.181142% W80.706686°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): n/a
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cool sunny, 50s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: mild sunny 50s
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ED If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ONO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 80 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested 10% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 6' -8' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5' -8'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (> 10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight x Occasional Bends _ Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 59 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 12 -11 -13
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP3 — Perennial RPW Stream A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0
0
0
2
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
-5
-4
-4
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
3
U
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
3
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max points)
�
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
3
A�
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max po ints
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max p oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
3
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
}+
12
(de e ply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
3
a
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d
14
Root depth and density on banks
0
0 -4
0 -5
3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
-3
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0
0
0
2
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
-5
-4
-5
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
4
16
no riffles/ripnlcs or nools, = 0; well- develo ed =max oints
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
E-
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
[-2 3
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
59
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY
Lkm' --�,
USACE AID#
DWQ#
SCP4 — Intermittent RPW Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Ryland Homes, POC: Tom Kutz 2. Evaluator's Name:Thomas Blackwell, PWS & K. Thames, WPIT
3. Date of Evaluation: 12 -11 -13 4. Time of Evaluation: 4p
5. Name of Stream: Unimportant Intermittent RPW Stream B 6. River Basin: Santee (HUC # 03050103)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 1.5 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 50 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located on the northwest side of Margaret Wallace
Road onnosite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and northeast of Stonev Glen Drive in Mint Hill, North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.181142% W80.706686°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): n/a
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cool, sunny. 50s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: mild, sunnv. 50s
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ED If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 80 % Residential % Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
10 % Forested 10% Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 4' -5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3' -5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight x Occasional Bends _ Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 25 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature tie &Ld Date 12 -11 -13
This channel evaluation form is in ended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP4 — Intermittent RPW Stream B
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 — 5
0-4
0 - 5
0
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
1
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
-
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
0
U
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
,..,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
0
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
0.
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max po ints
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max p oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4
0 — 5
I
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max oints
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
ya
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max poi nts
-
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max p oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
E,
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
-
16
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
2
x
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max p oints
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
*4
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
25
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY
USACE AID#
DWQ#
SCP5 — Intermittent RPW Stream C
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Ryland Homes-, POC: Tom Kutz 2. Evaluator's Name:Thomas Blackwell. PWS & K. Thames, WPIT
3. Date of Evaluation: 12 -11 -13 4. Time of Evaluation: 4p
5. Name of Stream: Important Intermittent RPW Stream C 6. River Basin: Santee (HUC # 03050103)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 2.5 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 50 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located on the northwest side of Margaret Wallace
Road opposite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and northeast of Stoney Glen Drive in Mint Hill North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.181142% W80.706686*
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cool, sunnv. 50s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: mild, sunnv, 50s
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ED If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 80 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested 10% Cleared/ Logged % Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 5' -7' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3' -5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >I0 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight x Occasional Bends _ Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 39 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ' Date 12 -11 -13
This channel evaluation form is in ended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP5 — Intermittent RPW Stream C
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
1
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
-
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
2
U
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
..,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max poi nts
'S'
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
a'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max p oints
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
to
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max p oints
I 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
J
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
*4
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
3
E�
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0
0
0
2
IS
(substantial impact °0; no evidence = max points)
-5
-4
-5
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0— 3
0— 5
0— 6
2
16
no riffles/ripple, les or nook = 0; we11- develo ed =max oints
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
F-'
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
x
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
39
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

41
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP6 — Intermittent RPW Stream D
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AdW
1. Applicant's Name: Ryland Homes: POC: Tom Kutz 2. Evaluator's Name:Thomas Blackwell, PWS & K. Thames, WPIT
3. Date of Evaluation: 12 -11 -13 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:30p
5. Name of Stream: Important Intermittent RPW Stream D 6. River Basin: Santee (HUC # 03050103)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 23 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 100 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located on the northwest side of Margaret Wallace
Road opposite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and northeast of Stoney Glen Drive in Mint Hill North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.181142% W80.706686°
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): n/a
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cool sunny, 50s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: mild, sunny, 50s
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES CD If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19: Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 80 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10 % Forested 10% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 6' -8' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5' -8'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (> 10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight x Occasional Bends _ Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 44 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature �W.&Ld Date 12 -I1 -13
This channel evaluation form is in ended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP6 — Intermittent RPW Stream D
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max
points)u
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
2
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
—
5
Groundwater discharge
0 -3
0 -4
0 -4
2
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
,..,
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max poi nts
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
a'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
y,
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
,,*
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
*4
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
3
F�
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 4
0-5
2
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
-
Presence of riffle - pool /ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
16
no riffles/ripple.— or nook = 0; well- develo ed =max oints
17
Habitat complexity
0 -6
0 -6
0 -6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Q18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
x
no shading vegetation — 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0 - 5
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
*4
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
2'
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-51
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
44
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

�r
WETLAND. DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Ravenscroft City /County: Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 12 -11 -13
Applicant/Owner: Ryland Homes,_POC: Mr. Tom Kutz State: NC 'Sampling'Point DPI - Upland'
Investigator(s): Thomas,Bl_ackwell „PWS, & Kelly Thames, WPIT Section, Township, Range: Mint Hill
Landform (hillslope, terrace; etc:) hillslope ,Local relief (concave; convex, none) none Slope;( ° /q)': 0 =2%
Subregion (LRR;or'MLRA): ,MLRA _ Lat., N35.,181'142° Long!: W80.706686” Datum: NAD83
Soil Map UnitName'Cecil sandy, clay loam, 8- 15 %islopes, moderately,eroded (CeD2) NWI Classification:
Are ,climatic /hydrologic.conditions 6f4he site•typical for this time of the year? Yes X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal . Yes
Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally`problematic? circumstances' present?
(If needed, explain any answers'in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
Hydric soil present? No I Is the sampled area`within a wetland? No
Wetland hydrology present? No
Remarks:
Data point is representative' of art -upland non jurisdictional area;.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two'required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all thatapply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) '
High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen, Sulfide Odor (C1)
_Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Ahizospheres • on Living
—Moss Trim Lines (P1 6)
Water Marks (131)
_ Roots, (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust,(B4)
_Soils�(C6)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_Thin Muck:Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
(Explain`in Remarks)
_ShallowAquitard'(D3)
Imagery.(B7)
_Other
Microtopographic Relief,,(D4)
Water- Stained Leaves (139Y
_ FAC- Neutral Test +(D5)
Aquatic?Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water table presents Yes
No X Depth (inches):
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
present? N
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data,(stream'gaug(e,,'monitoring well, aerial photos, previous 'inspections),,iFavailable;
Remarks
T.heretare no indicators of'wetland hydrology present.
US,Arrny Corps•of'Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

r
� N
VEGETATION - ,Use;sclentificinames of plants
Sampling Point: DPI - .upland°
50/20 Thresholds
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
20% 50%
Tree
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft )
%Cover
Species
Status
Tree Stratum 14 '35
1
Liquidambarstyractflua
30
Y
FAC
Sapling /Shrub Stratum 10 25
2
Pinus taeda
20
Y
FAC
Herb•Stratum 6 15
3
Juniperus virginiana
710
N
FACU
Woody'Vine.Stratum 0 0
4
Quercus :alba
10
N
FACU
5
Dominance-Test Worksheet
6
Number of Dominant
7
Species thatare OBL,
8
FACW, or FAC: 5- (A)
9
Total Number -of Dominant
10
Species Across,all Strata: 7 (B)
70
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant
Species thatare OBL„
Sapling /S hrub
bsolute
Dominant'
Indicator
FACW, or FAC- 71.43% (A/B)
Plot-Size
Stratum (
15 ft )
% Cover
Species
Status
1
Baccharis hahmifolta
20
Y
FACW
Prevalence Index Worksheet,
2
Acernegundo
1'0
Y
FAC
Total %.Coverof
3
Rubus argutus
- _ 10
Y
FACU
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0,
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
10
Y
FAC
FACW species- 20 ,x 2— 40
5
'FAC species 70 x,3 = 2101
6
FACU species 60 z'4s= 240
7_
0PL'species 0 x 5= 0
8
Column totals 150- (A) 490 (B)
91
Prevalence Index.= B /As= 3:27
'10
-
50
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetatio`n,lindicators:
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Rapid test for hydrophytic'vegetation
Herb
Stratum Plot Size (
5 ft: )
Cover
Species
Status
X Dominance test is� >So%
1
Lespedeza cuneata
30
Y
FACU
Prevalencejndex is 53.0'
2
_
Morpfiological adaptations` (provide
3
supporting "data';i nil ,Rernarks or on a
4
5
_separate•sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
6
_ (explain)
7
'Indicators of,hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must be
8 _
'present, unless disturbed or problematic
9
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
10 --
1;1
12
Tree - Woody plants 3 in (7 6 cm)'or more;m diameterat
,breast height (DBH), regardless of height
13
14
Saplinglshrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
'15
greater than 3.28 ft'(1 m),tall
30
= 'Total Cover
Herb - All herbaceous'(-non-woody) plants, regardless of
size, woody - plants less than'3 28 ft tall
Woody Vine
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft. )
% Cover
Species
Status
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
I
height
2
_
3�
4-
Hydrophytic
5
vegetation
0
= Total Cover
present? Y
US Army Corps of Engineers
or on a
Greater,than 50% of theAominant vegeation is'FAC or wetter
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regiorn

•'y
j
SOIL
Samplinq,P.oint: DP1 Upland
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence.of`indicators.)
.Depth
(Inches)
Matrix
Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type* Loc"*
Texture
Remarks,
0 -20
7.5YR 5/8
70
7.5YR 4/3
30'
Yoamy clay
*Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matnx,.CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains
* *Location: PL =Pore, Lining, M= Matrix
Hydiric,S'oil,lndicators: Indicators 'for Problematic Hydric Soils:'
—Dark Surface (S7)
Histisol (A1) PolyvaIue,Below Surface (S8) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) (MLRA 147,148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
_
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark'Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Hydrogen Sulfi_de.(A4) (MLRA,147, 148) '(MLRA 136, 147)
Stratified•Layers (A5)• Loamy Gleyed'Matrix (F2) Very'Shallow.Dark Surface (TF12)
RR N) _Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
- 2 cm Muck (A10) (L _
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (All 2) _,Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky'Mineral (S1) _Redox Depressions (F8i
(LRR N, MLRA 1'47, 148) —,Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5) _Piedmont Floodplain. Soils (F19) (MLRA 148),
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
*Jndicators of hydrophytic vegetationiand wetland hydrology•must be present „unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type.
Depth (inches):_
Hydric soil, present? N
Remarks:
There are no indicators of hydric'soils present.
US Army Corps of ',Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

r'
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A., REPORT COMPLETION, DATE FOR PRELIMINARY �J,URISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 3/19/14
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
The Ryland Group, Inc.
Poc Mr. Torn Kutz
3600 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28273
C. DISTRICT OFFICE,, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District
D. PROJECT IOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: located
on the northwest side of Margaret Wallace Road opposite of the intersection with Joseph Drive and
northeast of'Stoney Glen Drive in Mint Hill, North Carolina
(USETHE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County /parish /borough: Mecklenburg City: Mint Hill
35.181142° N, Long_ . 80.706686'W.
Universal Transverse, Mercator: NAD 83
Name of nearest waterbody: McAlpine Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non- wetland waters: 3;980, linear feet: width (ft) and /or 0.458 acre.,
Cowardin Class: R5UB1, R4,SB3
Stream Flow: Perennial,_ Intermittent
Wetlands.
Cowardin Class:
Name of any water bodies, on the site'that have been identified as Section 10'
waters:
Tidal:
,Non - Tidal:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ 'O;ff_ice (Desk) Determination. Date':
El ield Determination. Date(s): December 12, 2013

r
,y
,• A
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States- on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby'advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that.site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested #his
preliminary JD has declined to�exercise the option'to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time,
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant.obtains anindividual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" ,,(PCN),, or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has,'not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit.applicant,is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a ;permit authorization
based on: a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and ,conditions of the permit ,authorization,, and
that "basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right.to request an individual permit rather-than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can, accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all ,the terms and conditions of that permit, including Whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved J D constitutes the applicant'ls acceptance �of .the use of ,the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will- be processed as soon as is
practicable;, (6) accepting a" permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or.und'ertaking any, activity in reliance, on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in anyway by that activity
are' jurisdictional waters of the'United States; and precludesany challenge to
such jurisdiction `in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applican't:elects to use: either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, thatAD
will be processed as soon as'is practicable. Further, an approved JD., a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual,
permit d'en'ial can be,adminis_tratively, appealed pursuant tof 33,C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional 'issues_ can be raised (see `33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)), if, during that administrative appeal", it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether C1WA. jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon ,as is practicable.
This "preliminary JD finds that,there, "maybe "waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the,site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
2

Y
N
v' •
SUPPORTING DATA. Data,reviewed for preliminary'JD (check all that apply
checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately' reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the,
applicant/consultant.
.❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological .Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological'Survey map(s). Cite, scale & quad name:1:24�,00Q, Mint
Hill, NC„ Dated+ 1996.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
Mecklenburg County Soil Survey.
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: ' .
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
of 1,929)
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):Site photographs of stream channel
(December „, 2013).
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
: The information recorded on this form h
necessarily been verified by the C�
later jurisdictional .d'eterminations:
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
3
r �
3/19/14
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

a
.•
Site
Number
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardian
Class
Estimated'
Amount of
Aquatic
Resource in
Review Area
Class of Aquatic
Resource
Stream A
N35.181142°
W803066867
R5UB1
.2;917 'linear feet,
non- section 10 -- non - tidal.
Stream'A
N35.181142°
W80:706686°
R4SB3
1,379 linear feet
non--section 10 -- non -tidal
Stream B
N35.18114T
W80.706686 °'
R4SB3
94 linear feet
non - section 10 — non -tidal
Stream C
N3 5:181142°
W80:706686`
R4$63.
247 linear feet
non- section'l0 =- non -tidal
Stream D
N35.181142°
W80:706686°
R4SB3
1,23gr linear feet
non - section 10 non -tidal

r
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
March 1'9, 2014
Brad Cardwell'
Ryland Homes
3600 Arco,Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28273
Project: Ravenscroft Subdivision
Expiration of.Acceptance: September 19, 2014
County: Mecklenburg
This is a conditional acceptance letter. 'It replaces'a previous one,issued March 13, 2014. The purpose of this letter is.to notify
you that the North Carolina, Ecosystem Enhancement-,Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept: payment for compensatory mitigation for
impacts associated with the above referenced - project as indicated.in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that
parti6pation:in,the NCEEP'will be approved by the permit issuing agencies'as mitigation for- proiect impacts. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to contacrtheseagencies,to ,determine if'payment,to -the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other
state federal or local government permits regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed:activity including SL 2009 -337:
An Act to Promote the•Use of Compensatory Mitigation. Banks as,amended by S.L201 I -343.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date,of this letter'and is not transferable. 'If we haveoot reeeiveda copy of the
issued 404 Permit /401 Certification /t✓AMA permit °within this time frame,,this acceptance will expire. It�is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy ofthe perttiit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in.that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the,authorized York. The amount of the In-
Lieu Fee to'.
e.paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule.and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information - supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require. compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is determined by
per itting agencies and mayexceed the im act'amountsshown below.
Impact
River
Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlatids,(acres)
Buffer I
'(So. Ft.)
l3ufter II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool I Warm _
Ri avian
Non-Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Catawba
03050103''
0
0 188
i
0
0
0
0
0
YThe�Catawba•03 Expanded Service Area w,iMbe utilized for this4mpact.
Upon receipt of payment, EEP- will take responsibility for-providing ',the compensatory mitigation. Tile mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement PFogram In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If'you have any questions or-need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams,at
(919) 707 -8915.
Sincerely,
Ja ies, B Stanfill
gss&,Management Supervisor
cc: Karen.Higgins, NCDWR Wetlands /401 Unit
William Elliot, USAGE- Asheville
Thomas Blackwell, agent
File A�A
R"torigg... Enka"... Protectu� Our ltA& MC ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh; NC 27699-16521919-707-8976 / www.nceep.net

,r
.I#
Nationwide Permit No. 29 Request for Verification March 19, 2014
Ravenscroft Subdivision CWS Project No. 2013 -3253
Photograph A. View of Important Intermittent Stream D, facing upstream.
Approximate location for proposed road crossing (Note: Heavy rain in last 48 hours).
Photograph B. View of Important Intermittent Stream D, facing downstream.
Approximate location for proposed road crossing (Note: Heavy rain in last 48 hours).