20140949 Ver 1_401 Application_20140914

CWS
Carolina Welland Services
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 - Phone
704 -527 -1133 - Fax
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR — NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
2 0 1 4 0 9 4 9
Date: 9/4/2014
CWS Project 9: 2013 -3232
PAID
L P 0 5 2014
KJA
KJAL
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
rP PN(`i OQTTRPC ARP NOT A.Q NOTPr) KfNn1 V NIYr1PV ii.Q AT oNrP.
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
WQC 3890 for the Saddlebrook subdivision. A check for the application fee of $570 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank &Ld
Thomas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
1
9/4/14
5 Application for WQC 3890
2
9/4/14
1 Application Fee ($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
WQC 3890 for the Saddlebrook subdivision. A check for the application fee of $570 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank &Ld
Thomas Blackwell, PWS
Senior Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

P
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Saddlebrook Site
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Carolina Development Services, LLC, POC: Mr. Scott Twiddy
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc., Mr. Thomas Blackwell, PWS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: east of the end of Hill Pine Road, south of Pelham Lane and west of US 601 in Midland,
North Carolina
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Midland
8. County: Cabarrus
9. Lat: N 35.2439740 Long: W 80.5090930 (Decimal Degrees Please
10. Quadrangle Name: Midland, NC, dated 1996
11. Waterway: UT to Muddy Creek
12. Watershed:
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 29
General Permit #
X Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
Prepare File Folder
AID:
Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site /Waters Name:
Keywords:
SEP 0 5 2014
Begin Date

CWS
1.1
Weuand Services
August 27, 2014
,,Mr William Elliott
550 E WESTINGHOUSE,BLVD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866- 527- 1177(office)
704 - 527- 1133(fax)
U S Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
and WQC 3890
Saddlebrook
Midland, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2013 -3232
Dear Mr Elliott
The Saddlebrook site is approximately 35 acres in extent and is located east of the end of Pine Hill Road,
south of Pelham Lane, and west of U S 601 in Midland, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, attached) On
behalf of Carolina Development,Services, LLC has contracted Carolina Wetland,Sery ices, Inc (CWS) to
provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project CWS is requesting written verification from
the U S Army Corps of Engineers regarding the extent of jurisdictional features within the Saddlebrook
project,area The purpose of this project is to develop the site as a residential subdivision comprising of
210 single family lots
Applicant Name: Carolina Development Services, LLC, POC Mr Scott Twiddy
Mailing Address: 2649 Brenc_konridge Center Drive, Monroe, North Carolina 28110
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: ,803- 389 -3387
Street Address of Project: east of,the,end of Pine Hill Road, south of Pelham Lane, and west of U S 601
in Midland, North Carolina
Waterway: UT to Muddy Creek
Basin: Yadkin (HU# 03040105)
City: Midland
County,: Cabarrus
Tax Parcel ID numbers: 5544976115,
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N 35 243974 °, W 80 509093°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Midland quadrangle, North Carolina, dated 1996
Current Land Use
The site consists of a clear -cut tract with wooded margins Typical on -site vegetation includes saplings of
red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), winged elm (Ulmus alata), and loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) Herbaceous species include little blue stem (Andropogon wirginicus), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), and sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus)
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW CWS -INC NET

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Request for Verification CWS Protect No. 2013 -3232
On -site soils consist of Kirksey silt loam 1 to 6 percent slopes (KkB) and Misenheimer channery silt
loam, 0 to 4 percent,slopes (MsA, Soil Survey of Cabarrus County'; Figures 3 and 4, attached) Both of
the soils located in the project area moderately well - drained soils Neither of the on -site soils are listed as
hydric on the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Cabarrus Countyz or on the National Hydric Soils
List 3
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
On January 28, 2014, CWS scientists Thomas Blackwell, PWS, Gregg Antemann, PWS, Kelly Thames,
Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) and Logan Hardin delineated (flagged in the field)
jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands within the project area This delineation was
conducted according to 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 2007
USACE Jurisdictional,Determmation Form Instructional Guidebooks, with further technical guidance
from the Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplement 6, dated April 2012 A Wetland
Determination Data Form representative of on -site wetland areas is attached (DPI) A Wetland
Determination Data Form representative of on -site non - Junsdictional upland areas is attached (DP2) The
locations of these data points are identified as DP 1 and DP2 on Figure 5 (attached)
Junsdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE'and North Carolina Division of
Water Resources ( NCDWR) guidance These classifications included sampling with a D- shaped dip net,
taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on- sitemream channel A NCDWR Stream Classification Form representative
of Stream Aais attached (SCPI) The'location�ofthis stream classification-point i's identified as SCP1 on
Figure 5
Results
The results of the wetland delineation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional stream
channel (Stream A) and two jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands AA and BB) located within the project
area (Figure 5, attached) On -Site ,jurisdictional waters of the U S include unnamed tributaries (UT) to
Muddy Creek (Figure 6, attached) Muddy Creek is a part of the Yadkin River basin (HU# 03040105)
Muddy Creek is classified as "Class C Waters" by the NCDWR According to the NCDWR, Class C Waters
are defined as "Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture " On -Site
jurisdictional waters of the U S total approximately 0 55 acres On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U S are
summarized in Table 1 (next page)
'United States'Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2013 Soil Survey of Cabarrus,County, North Carolina
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydric +Soils List, USDA -NRCS
North,Carollna State,Office, Raleigh
3 United'States Department of Agriculture —Natural Resources'Conservatlon Service, 2012 National Hydric Soils List,by State
a Environmental Laboratory, 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
s USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form.Instructional Guidebook 2007 USACE Regulatory National Standard Operating Procedures for
conducting an approved Jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC
e US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region US Army Engineer Research and Development Centre, Vicksburg, Mississippi
2

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Nationwide Permit'No 29 and Reauestifor Verification CWS Proiect`No. 2013 -3232
Table 1. Summary of Saddlebrook On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Seasonal RPWs
Seasonal RPWs are those, that exhibit continuous flow seasonally This flow regime is the result of a
lowering of the water table during dry periods that stops groundwater discharge'to the stream channel
Seasonal streams do not typically support aquatic life requiring year -round flow to support reproductive '
and maturation'stages This section describes each on -site Seasonal RPW stream and the field
observations supporting these determinations
Stream A originates on site and flows southeast across the middle portion of the project area for
approximately 354 linear feet Stream A Wetlands AA and BB (Figure 5) Stream characteristics of
Stream A indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three months in atypical year Stream A
was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water With seasonal flow (Seasonal RPW) according to
USACE/EPA guidance Seasonal RPW Stream A exhibited weak bed and banks, weak flow, substrate
consisting ofsand and small cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of 2 to4 feet Biological
sampling within Seasonal RPW Stream A revealed a weak presence of iron oxidizing bacteria and a weak
presence of algae Seasonal RPW Stream A scored 20 5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR
Stream Classification Form and a 35 out -of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Form, indicating intermittent status (SCPI, attached) Photograph A (attached) is
representative of Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as "Those areas that are
mundated,or saturated by surface or ground watef at a frequency and duration,sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
' Classifications, of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non - Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non -RPWs) Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year- roundfow, and seasonal streams that
have continuous flow at least seasonally Two classifications of jurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and connection to TNWs
These classificationsanclude either adjacent or directly abutting Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within floodplams or in close
proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a TNW
Jurisdiction
Stream,
USACE
Classification
NCDWR
Stream
Approx.
Approx.
' Jurisdictional
USACE/EP.A
Stream
Quality
Length
Acreage
Feature
Rapanos
Intermittent /,
Point"
Classification
Assessment
linear
(feet)
(ac.)
`Classification
perennial
Score
Score '
(SCP)
Stream A
Seasonal,RPW
Intermittent
9CP1
205
35
354
0 032
Stream Total:
3541f
0.032 ac.
Jurisdictional'
- USACE/EPA Rapanos
Approx
Feature
'Classification
Data Point (DP) � -
,Acreage,
(ac.)
Wetland AA
Directly Abutting RPW
DPI
048
Wetland BB
Directly Abutting RPW
DP2
0 041
Wetland Total:
0.521 ac.
Seasonal RPWs
Seasonal RPWs are those, that exhibit continuous flow seasonally This flow regime is the result of a
lowering of the water table during dry periods that stops groundwater discharge'to the stream channel
Seasonal streams do not typically support aquatic life requiring year -round flow to support reproductive '
and maturation'stages This section describes each on -site Seasonal RPW stream and the field
observations supporting these determinations
Stream A originates on site and flows southeast across the middle portion of the project area for
approximately 354 linear feet Stream A Wetlands AA and BB (Figure 5) Stream characteristics of
Stream A indicate that continuous flow is present for at least three months in atypical year Stream A
was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water With seasonal flow (Seasonal RPW) according to
USACE/EPA guidance Seasonal RPW Stream A exhibited weak bed and banks, weak flow, substrate
consisting ofsand and small cobbles, and an average ordinary high water width of 2 to4 feet Biological
sampling within Seasonal RPW Stream A revealed a weak presence of iron oxidizing bacteria and a weak
presence of algae Seasonal RPW Stream A scored 20 5 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDWR
Stream Classification Form and a 35 out -of a possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Form, indicating intermittent status (SCPI, attached) Photograph A (attached) is
representative of Intermittent Seasonal RPW Stream A
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as "Those areas that are
mundated,or saturated by surface or ground watef at a frequency and duration,sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
' Classifications, of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non - Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non -RPWs) Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year- roundfow, and seasonal streams that
have continuous flow at least seasonally Two classifications of jurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and connection to TNWs
These classificationsanclude either adjacent or directly abutting Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within floodplams or in close
proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a TNW

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Request for Verification CWS 'Proiect No. 2013 -3232
saturated soil conditions "8 The USACE uses three parameters to identify jurisdictional wetlands These
parameters areas follows 1) Hydrophytic Vegetation, 2) Wetland Hydrology,, and 3) H,ydric Soils
Except in certain atypical situations, all three parameters must be present in order for an area to be
determined to be a Jurisdictional wetland This section describes each.on -site junsdictional wetland and
the field observations that led to their determinations
Wetland AA`is approximately 0 48 acre in extent and is located directly abutting Intermittent RPW
Stream A (Figure 5) The upper portion of Wetland AA is a forested wetland and exhibits low chroma
soils (2 5Y 7/2), saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, oxidized rhizospheres on living
roots, water - stained leaves, and wetland drainage patterns Dominant vegetation in this wetland includes
red maple, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sea myrtle (Baccharis hahmifoha), greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), Japanese stilt,grass (Microstegium vimineum), and soft rush
(Juncus, effusus) A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of the upper portion of Wetland
AA is attached -as DP 1 (attached) Photograph B (attached) is representative of the forested portion of
Wetland AA
The lower portion of Wetland AA is an herbaceous, early successional wetland The early successional
portion of Wetland AA is similar in composition to Wetland BB Wetland BB is approximately 0 039
acre in extent and is located along Intermittent RPW Stream A (Figure 5) Wetlands AA and BB exhibit
low chroma soils (2 5Y 6/2), saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, oxidized
rhizospheres on living roots, water'-stained leaves, and wetland drainage patterns Dominant vegetation in
these wetlands includes saplings of sea myrtle, sweetgum, winged.elm, and black willow (Salix mgra)
Herbaceous species include Japanese stilt grass, shallow sedge, soft rush, and wool grass (Scirpus
cyperinus) A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland,BB and the herbaceous
portion of Wetland AA is attached as DP (attached) Photographs ,C and Dare representative of the
herbaceous, early successional portion of Wetland AA and Wetland,BB, respectively
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter'was forwarded to the State Histonc Preservation Office (SHPO) on August 19, 2014 to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected
by the project As of the date of submittal, no response has been received from SHPO
Protected Snecies
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on August 18, 2014 to
determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate, endangered, threatened species or critical habitat,
located within the project area As of the date of submittal, no response has been received from NCNHP
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose,of the project is to develop approximately 35 acres of property into a residential subdivision
consisting of 210 lots This project will provide single - family housing to meet the growth and demand of
an,area of Cabarrus County that is experiencing significant population growth The proposed
development will result in unavoidable•impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters
"Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual"-, Tecluucal'Report,Y =87 -1, US Army Engineer
WaterwayvExpenment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
4

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 29 -and Request for Verification CWS Proiect No 2013 -3232
Avoidance and Minimization
The, Saddlebrook project has been designed to minimize necessary impacts to junsdictional waters of the
U S wherever possible The original site plan proposed impacts to 0 519 acres of wetlands and 253 linear
feet of stream channel (Figure 7, attached) The site plan has since been revised to reduce wetland impacts
(Figure 8, attached) A single lot was eliminated in order to avoid impacts to forested portion of Wetland
AA ,
Impacts to jurisdictional Waters include the partial fill of two wetland areas,and the partial fill of an
mterniittent stream channel In areas where impacts to Jurisdictional waters are unavoidable, steps have
been taken to minimize both the extent and severity of the. impacts Proper sedimenVand erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters All work will be constructed`m
accordance with Water Quality Certification No 3890
Proposed Impacts °to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the Saddlebrook project include filling of the
wetland areas and stream channel for development Stream impacts are limited to 253 'linear feet (or
0 023 acres) Impacts to Wetland AA,and Wetland BB consist-of 0 421 acres 0 039 acres, respectively,
with a total of approximately 0 46 acres Impacts to the jurisdictional waters of the U S are summarized
in Table 2
Table 2. Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. at the Saddlebrook project site.
,On behalf of'Carolina Development Services, LLC, CWS' is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification
Application with attachments in pursuant of Nationwide Permit No 29 and Water Quality Certification
No 3890
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S have been limited to 253 linear feet of intermittent
stream channel and 0 46 acre of permanent wetland impacts Due to the very low aquatic function of
Seasonal RPW Stream A„ CWS believes that a 1 1 Mitigation ratio is appropriate, for the proposed stream
impacts On -site wetlands are also highly disturbed;and display a lack of biological diversity, therefore
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts are also proposed at a 1 1 ratio
Jurisdiction
I
' I
Total
'Impact
Jurisdictional _�
Impact
_
Length
Total
Uiigih,
Impact'
Feature
USACEXPA
Intermittent/
Type
(linear
Area,
(linear
Area -
Rapanos
i
Perennial
;feet)
(acres)
feet)
(acres)
t
Classification
Stream A
Seasonal RPW
Intermittent
Fill
354
0 032
253
0 023
Stream Total:
2531f
0.023 ac.
Wetland AA
Directly Abutting RPW
Fill
N/A
048
N/A
0 421
Wetland BB
Directly Abutting RPW
Fill
N/A
0 041
N/A
0 039
Wetland Total
0 46 ac.
,On behalf of'Carolina Development Services, LLC, CWS' is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification
Application with attachments in pursuant of Nationwide Permit No 29 and Water Quality Certification
No 3890
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S have been limited to 253 linear feet of intermittent
stream channel and 0 46 acre of permanent wetland impacts Due to the very low aquatic function of
Seasonal RPW Stream A„ CWS believes that a 1 1 Mitigation ratio is appropriate, for the proposed stream
impacts On -site wetlands are also highly disturbed;and display a lack of biological diversity, therefore
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts are also proposed at a 1 1 ratio

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Nationwide Permit No 29 and Request -for Verification CWS Protect No 2013 -3232
Proposed Stream Mitigation
Due to the lack'of any mitigation banks within the 8 digit hydrologic unit code of the project, our client
proposes to mitigate for unavoidable stream impacts by enhancing approximately 290 linear feet of
perennial stream channel on an adjacent property (Figures 9 & 10, attached)
Our client proposes to perform Enhancement Level II stream restoration (on -site and in -kind) through the
use of bioengmeermg techniques to improve stream bank stability The existing channel is significantly
degraded with active bank erosion in a number of locations Proposed enhancement actions include
regrading the banks to a 2 1 slope where appropriate (large or mature trees will be avoided if`possible),
matting the banks with coir fiber matting, planting livestakes, and installing fascmes where appropriate to
provide additional bank toe protection Invasive plant species will also be removed from the riparian
area
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Our client proposes to mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts through the conversion of an existing
open water pond to a wetland Pond A is located on an adjacent property and is separated by a berm from
an existing wetland area (Figures 9 and 10, attached) Pond A is dominated by fragrant waterlily
(Nymphaea odorata) which is forming a monoculture The existing berm will be removed to make the
pond area contiguous with the wetland The new wetland area will be graded to provide a variety of
habitat niches and will be planted with appropriate native woody and herbaceous wetland plant species
In addition, the adjacent existing wetland will be treated for invasive species including Ludwigia
grandiflora Photopage 2 documents the existing condition of this pond and adjacent wetlands Table 3
summarizes the proposed mitigation for this project
Table 3. Proposed Mitigation
Proposed
Length (LF)
Area (Acre)
Mrtigahon
Stream
260
Enhancement
Pond
Conversion to
-
028
Wetland
Wetland
Creation (Berm
0 12
Removal)
Wetland
044
Enhancement
TOTAL
290 Lmear4eet
0 84 acre
0

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Request for Verfficahon CWS Project No. 2013 -3232
Mitigation Monrtorm
The proposed enhancement of Perennial Stream B will be monitored for a period of five years from the
completion of the mitigation work The purpose of this monitoring is to ensure the success of the
proposed mitigation and to enable remedial action to be undertaken in a timely fashion as necessary This
includes vegetation survival monitoring for at least five years of monitoring (unless approved otherwise)
After completion of the mitigation work, annual reports will be sent to the USACE and NCDWQ
following the completion of each annual monitoring event The monitoring events will be conducted at
the same time of year during mid - growing season The report will include photographs, vegetation
survival counts, and a narrative describing current site conditions Photographs will be taken from no
fewer than three established monitoring positions The, exact locations will be determined, marked with a
"stake, and recorded with a GPS receiver,m the field during the first monitoring ,event and used in each of
the following monitoring events-
Vegetation survival counts will be collected from established plots the proposed wetland enhancement
area The plot locations have been randomly determined in the office using GIS- The total area of plots
is equal to 5% of the specific restoration site Within these vegetation plots, all vegetation will be
counted, identified to the species level; and assigned a classification of "Planted" or "Volunteer"
indicating its source
The success criteria set for this project is a planted vegetation survival rate of 85% If the survival rate
drops to below 85% during the momtoring,penod, CWS will conduct remedial plantings to meet the 85%
threshold

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Nationwide Permit No 29 and Request for Verification CWS Proiect No 2013 -3232
Please do not hesitate to contact Tom Blackwell at 704 -527 -1177 or tom @cws -inc net should you have
any questions or comments regarding these findings
Sincerely,
Thomas J Blackwell, PWS Erin Bradshaw Settevendemio
Senior Scientist Project Wetland Scientist
I
Attachments Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
USGS Site Location Map
Aerial Imagery Site Location Map
Current NRCS -USDA Cabarrus County Soil Survey
Historic NRCS -USDA Cabarrus County, Soil Survey
Jun'sdictional' Bouridary Topographic Map
Project Area UT Flow to Muddy Creek
Original Proposed Site Plan Impacts
Revised Proposed Site Plan Impacts
Mitigation Location Map
Proposed Mitigation
Agent Authorization Form
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No 29
NCDWR Stream Classification Fofms,(SCPI)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (SCP1)
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (DPI- DP3)
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Forms
Agency Correspondence
Photopage 1
Photopage 2
cc Mr Bryan Tompkins, U S Fish & Wildlife Service
Mr Scott Twiddy, Carolina Development Services; LLC

JI
Highway 24/27
I`
f H �G! f !u: f`' a .•
1 M . :� ell-
BPI,
&
chef .�' � - �� . � r T ➢ } ' •o
`
N2
US 601
_ r
. • , � / —_ '� \``. _r ••r � \� / \ \\ ,r��% 'tom
Bethel School Road
Midland
of Corn
d e Y ` (• ' •'y r 111d
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
t I
• ' l r r' Legend
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE, MIDLAND, NC, DATED 1996. {' .1 �� \ Project Limits
SCALE: 11 1 DATE:
FIGURE NO. I 1 2000 8/18/14
USGS Site Location Map CWSPROJECTNO: DRAWN BY: ELBS
Saddlebrook Site Ct�— 2013 -3232
1 Midland, North Carolina APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY:
CWS Project No. 2013 -3232 WWW.CWS- INC.NET TJB

GoC ,KkB/
MsA KkB MsA
� GoC
Ch
El B ' MSA m
1 BaB KkB
C `rte 24 24
KkB.
BaB 27
<b 27 Bad MsA
K k8 `r
Highway 24/27/ KkB
H e8
KkB
f 6Q2
K. k8
TaB
t
Ch B aB ,�
' GoC
BaB + TaB
\ KkB MsA
BaB US 601
Cao f- a!-
120 to ,
J. B a13 r
MsA r Bab
u, w w
B an B
' Bethel School Road KkB MsA
f�
BaB Legend
------ Project Limits
1.000 500 0 1,000 Feet
�---� Soil - Description
REFERENCE. HISTORIC NRCS-U SDA SOIL SURVEY OF CABAR RUS ��' f� -1 KkB - Kirksey silt loam, 1 -6% slopes
COUNTY, NC, SHEETS 5, 6, 7, AND 8, DATED 1976 A MsA - Misenheimer channery silt loam, 04% slopes
f,�ts
FIGURE NO. Historic MRCS- USDA Soil Survey! SCALE 1" : 1000' DATE 8/18/14
of Cabarrus County CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY
Saddlebrook Site C��J Cws 2013 -3232 ELBS
4 Midland, North Carolina APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY
CWS Project No. 2013-3232 WWW.CWS- INC.NET TJB

% J
1 .
•N Bethel School Road ~'
l�i f 4 .R,
f
''� '• • �`�''^,�, US 601 J 1
Muddy Creek
t
Midland
Legend
Project Limits
Seasonal RPW within project boundary
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
Wetlands within project boundary
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE, MIDLAND, NC, DATED 7996.
l UT to Muddy Creek
FIGURE NO. Project Area UT Flow SCALE: 1" : 1000' DATE. 8/18/14
to Muddy Creek CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY
Saddlebrook Site Ct�) CWS 2013 -3232 ELBS
6 Midland, North Carolina APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY:
CWS Project No. 2013 -3232 WWW.CWS- INC.NET I TJB

Stream Enhancement
Approx. 290 If
Wetland Enhancement
Approx. 0.44 acre
Ilk
�i
w � '
r
F' A
71. J-
7
100
0 100 Feet
50
REFERENCE: AERIAL IMAGERY BY NC ONE MAP, DATED 2010.
FIGURE NO.
Proposed Mitigation
10
Saddlebrook Site
Midland, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2013 -3232
y
1
t
I
f
Wetland Creation
Approx. 0.12 acre
I-
Pond Converstion
Approx. 0.28 acre
Legend
Proposed Stream Enhancement
r
Wetland Creation (0.12 acre)
p _
Pond Conversion (0.28 acre)
Wetland Enhancement (0.44 acre)
LIM
SCALE: 1" . 100' DATE 8/26/14
o.o
CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY:
2013 -3232 ELBS
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY: TJ B
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Scott Twiddy, representing Carolina Development Solutions, LLC, hereby certify that
I have authorized Gregg C. Antemann and Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on
my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of
this request for wetlands determination / permitting and any and all standard and' special
conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
a -znwL
Applicant's signature
Date
Aza c- A --
Agent's signature
03/14'/13
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

2 0 1 4 0 9 4 9
OF WA7F9 $ PAI
o pG Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page l of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®section 404 Permit ❑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
1e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below-
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Saddlebrook
2b.
County:
Cabarrus
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Midland
2d.
Subdivision name:
Saddlebrook
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Carolina Developmonet Services, LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
09239 -0335
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mr. Scott Twiddy
3d.
Street address:
2649 Breckonridge Center Drive
3e.
City, state, zip:
Monroe, NC 28110
3f.
Telephone no.:
803 - 389 -3387
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
stwiddy.cds @gmail.com
Page l of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
®,Agent ❑ Other„ specify
4b
Name
Mr Andrew McCoy
4'c
Business name
(if applicable)
John Wieland Homes
4d
Street address
8325 -D Arrow ridge Blvd
4e
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28273
4f
Telephone no
(704) 522 -9200 -
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
,5
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Thomas Blackwell, PWS
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
5c
Street,address
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
5d
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e
Telephone no
704 - 527 -1177
5f
Fax no
704- 527 -1133
5g
Email address
tom @cws -inc net
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
55449761150000
Latitude 34 977757 Longitude
1b
Site coordinates,(in decimal degrees)
80 772892
(DD,DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size
34 8 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
Unnamed tributary to Muddy Creek
proposed project
2b
Water,Quality Classification of nearest receiving water,
Class C
2c
River basin
Yadkin (HU# 03040105
3.
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The Saddlebrook site is approximately 35 acres in extent and is located east of the end of Pine Hill Road, south of
Pelham Lane, and west of U S 601 in Midland, North Carolina The site consists of a clear -cut tract with wooded
margins Typical on -site vegetation includes saplings of red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
winged elm (Ulmus alata), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) Herbaceous species'mclude little blue stem ('Andropogon
virginicus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus)
On -site sods consist of Kirksey silt loam 1 to 6 percent slopes (KkB) and Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent
slopes (MsA, Soil Survey oPCabarrus County, Figures 3 and 4, attached) Both of'thwsoils located in the protect area
moderately well - drained soils Neither of the on -site soils are listed as hydnc on the North Carolina Hydnc Sods List for
Cabarrus County or on the National Hydnc Soils List
3b
Listihe total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
0 521 acres of wetlands
3c
List,the,total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
354 linear feet of streams
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of the project is to develop approximately 35 acres of property into a residential subdivision consisting of'210
lots This project will provide single - family housing to meet the growth and demand of an area of Cabarrus County that is
experiencing significant population growth The proposed development will result in unavoidable,impacts to on -site
jurisdictional waters
3e
Describe the overall project'in detail, including the type of equipment to be used'
The Saddlebrook project has been designed to minimize necessary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S wherever
possible, however impacts to jurisdictional waters include the partial fill of two wetland,areas and the partial fill of an
intermittent stream channel In areas where impacts to jurisdictional waters are unavoidable, steps have been taken to
minimize both the extent and severity of the impacts Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to
minimize disturbances to downstream waters A trackhoe and typical construction equipment will be used in the progress
of this development project All work will be in accordance with Water Quality Certification No 3890
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past ?
Comments
El Yes E-1 No El Unknown
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known)
Agency /Consultant Company
Other
4d
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
5
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
6
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑ No
6b
If yes, explain
Page 4 df 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there.are wetland impacts proposed on'the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
'2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of'impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area ofimpact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Tem ora T
W1 ®P ❑ T
Fill
PFO1
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
E] DWQ
0 421
W2 []PMT
Fill
PSS1
❑ Yes
® No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0 039
W3 [-]PMT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑'T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
046
2h Comments
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts), proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number- i
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)
others)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ® P ❑ T
Fill
UT to Muddy River
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DW_ Q
4'
253
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ D,WQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑'PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream,and tributary impacts
253
31 Comments Permanent Impacts to Perennial Streams total 300 If (0 005 acre)
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed, impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S then 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 T
01 ❑ PEI T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑ PEI 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
5g Comments -
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 ,Expected pond surface area (acres)
51 Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6 Bufferimpacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact,a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If,any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
_
B1 ❑ PE] T
—required
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
-
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments-
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Permanent'impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U S have been limited to 253 linear feet of intermittent stream channel
and 0 46 acre of permanent wetland impacts Due to the very'low aquatic function of Seasonal RPW Stream A, CWS
believes that a 1 1 Mitigation ratio is appropriate for the proposed stream impacts On -site wetlands are also highly
disturbed and display a lack of biological' diversity, therefore compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts are also
proposed at a 1 1 ratio
Proposed Stream Mitigation
Due to the lack,of any mitigation banks within the 8 digit hydrologic unit code of the project, our client proposes to mitigate
for unavoidable stream impacts by enhancing approximately 290 linear feet of perennial stream channel on an adjacent
property (Figures 9 & 10, attached)
Our client proposes to perform Enhancement Level II stream restoration through the use of bioengineering techniques to
improve stream bank stability The,existing channel is significantly degraded with active bank erosion in a number of
locations Proposed enhancement actions include regrading the banks to a 2 -1 slope where appropriate (large or mature
trees will be avoided if possible), matting the banks,with coir fiber matting, planting livestakes, and installing fascines
where,appropriate to provide additional bank toe protection Invasive plant species will also be removed from the riparian
area
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Our clienfproposes to mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts through the,conversion of an existing open water pond,to
a wetland Pond A is located on an adjacent property and is separated by a berm from an existing wetland area (Figures
9 and 10, attached) Pond A is dominated by fragrant waterldy (Nymphaea odorata) which is forming a, monoculture The
existing berm will be removed to make the pond area contiguous with the wetland Clean fill material will be placed in the
pond bed to create a habitat suitable for wetland plants The new wetland area will be graded to provide a variety of
habitat-niches and will be planted with appropriate native woody and herbaceous wetland plant species In addition, the
adjacent existing wetland will be`treated for invasive species including Ludwigia gmndiflora Photopage 2 documents the
existing condition of this pond and adjacent wetlands Wetland mitigation will total 0 84 acre
6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation9
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
6c
6d
6e
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(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 responsiblerripanan buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 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
The Saddlebrook project has been designed to minimize necessary,impacts,to jurisdictional wafers of the U S wherever
possible The original site plan proposed impacts to 0 519 acres of wetlands and 253 linear feet of stream channel (Figure 7,
attached) The site plan hasisince`been revised to reduce ,those figures (Figure 8, attached)
Impacts to jurisdictional waters include the partial fill of two wetland areas and the partial fill of an intermittent stream channel
In,areas Where impacts to jurisdictional waters,are unavoidable, -steps have been taken to minimize both the extent and
severity of the impacts
Unavoidable impacts associated with the construction of the Saddlebrook project include filling of the wetland areas and
stream channel for development Stream impacts are limited to 253 linear feet (or 0 023 acres) Impacts to Wetland AA and
Wetland BB consist,of 0 421 acres 0 039 acres, respectively, with a total of approximately 0 46 acres
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impactslfhrough construction techniques
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters All work will be
constructed'in accordance with Water Quality Certification No 3890
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the 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
E] Payment to in-lieu fee program
projects
® Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a 'Mitigation Bank
30 Name of- Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4 Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
lineaffeet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
Ae Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a
Does the project include or is it adjacent ^to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
lb
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 this project?
>24 %'%
2b
Does this prolect,require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c If °this project DOES NOT requwre,a;Stormwater Management Plan, explain why
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
® DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Cabarrus County
❑ Phase II
3b
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
El 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 stormwater 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
attached?
❑ Yes ® No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Forme— Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1 ,
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a
Does the project mvolve,.an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1b
If you answered "yes" to'the above; does,the project require, preparation of,an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or,SEPA final approval,
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter )
Comments
2
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
[],No
2c
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably,anticipated future impacts) result in
Yes
No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality
3b
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no;" provide a short narrative description
The project will not result in additional future development This is a stand alone 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
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
,5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat
5b Have,you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
E] Raleigh
'5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A letter was forwarded to`the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on August 18, 2014 to determine the
presence of'any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area As of the date of submittal, no response has been received from NCNHP
6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near,an area designated as, essential fish�habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fishenes http / /www'habitat noaa gov /protection /efh /efhmapper /index html
7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b, What data sources did you use to determine whether yoursite would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHP(:) on August 19, 2014 to determine the presence of
any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project As of the date of
submittal, no response has been received from SHPO
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑Yes ® No
8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
8c What'source(s) did,youl use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No 3710555400J and 371,0554400J
Mr Thomas Blackwell, PWS
08/21/2014
Applicant/Agent's Printed °Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the,applicant
is provided
Page l 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

NC IDWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: '0i � 2 S (s^ -rqq
Project/Site �',�
Latitude X13
Evaluator: V 1bow L d4vi
county- � �C
Longitude 6ef
Total Points:
' 2 � r �
Stream is at least intermittent
m
Strea Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral ermitten Perennial
Other
i
e g Quad Name
if? 19 or perennial if?-- 30*
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = _r J
Absent
Weak
Moderate
'Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
M
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool, step -pool, n
'le- ool sequence
0
CJ
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
'0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
15
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
0
1
15
11 Second,or greater order channel
No(= 0
Yes =•3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal =}
12 Presence of {Baseflow
01
2
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
C
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0 5
1
15
16 Organic,debris lines or piles
0
1 0,5
3
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water tables
No = 0
- Yes 3
G Biology (Subtotal=
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
t j
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0)
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1� 5
23 Crayfish
(0
05
1
is
24 Amphibians
0
0�'
1
15
25 Algae
0
0 5-
1,
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =_0 75, OBL = 15
Other = 0
`perennial reams 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
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET T
1. Applicant's Name: Carolina Development Services, LLC 2. Evaluator's Name: Kelly Thames, WPIT and Logan Hardin
3. Date of Evaluation: 01/28/14 4. Time of Evaluation: 2:30p
5. Name of Stream: Intermittent RPW Stream A 6. River Basin: Yadkin (HU# 03040105)
7. Approximate Drainage Area: approx. 63 acres 8. Stream Order: 1'`
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 1001f 10. County: Cabarrus
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): located east of the end of Hill Pine Road, south of
Pelham Lane and west of US 601 in Midland, North Carolina
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.243974% W80.509093'
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): n/a
14. Recent Weather Conditions: cold, clear, 30 -40s
15. Site conditions at time of visit: low 30s, clear and overcast
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO
_Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
an point? YE NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.5 acre
19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE<N
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
60 % Forested 20% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
21. Bankfull Width: 2'- 4' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1'-2'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) x Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (> 10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight x Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 35 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature L1' "VV+ /ba/ ' ``"& Date 01/28/2014
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
SCP1 — 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
2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
0
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
3
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
1
)�
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
0.
2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
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 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0 — 4
0 — 5
1
1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
3
�.
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
F"
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
QRoot
14
depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
E-
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Un
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
1
16
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
F
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0�
18
Canopy
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
0
Q
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
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
"r23
23
of wildlife use
0 -6
0 -5
0 -5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max point s
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
35
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern,Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Saddlebrook City/County Cabarrus Sampling Date 01/29/14
Applicant/Owner Carolina Development Services, LLC State 'NC Sampling Point DP1 - Wet,AA
Investigator(s) Kelly Thames, WPIT and Logan Hardin Section, Township, Range Midland
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) depression Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope ( %) 0 -2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA Lat- N35 243974° Long W80 509093° Datum NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Misenheimer channery silt loam, 04% slopes (MsA) NWI Classification
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation sod
Are vegetation sod
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Yes
or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
Hydnc,soil present? Yes
Wetland hydrology present? Yes
Is the sampled area within a wetland? Yes
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area This data point is representative of the upper
portion of Wetland AA k
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Pnmary Indicators (minimum of one
is required, check all that apply)
_Surface Sod Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al)
True=Aquahc�Plants (B14)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
—Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (1311)
X Roots (03)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment, Deposits (B2)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Soils (C6)
_Saturation
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D4 )
Iron Deposits (135)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Shallow Aqudard (D3)
Imagery (137)
Microtopographic Relief'(D4)-
X Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
,Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations
Surface water present? _ Yes
X No Depth (inches) 0"
- 2"
Wetland
Water table present? Yes
X No Depth (inches)
0"
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
X No Depth (inches)
0"
present? Y
(includes capillary fringe)'
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, `aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Indicators of wetland hydrolgy are present
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

a
vttxt I A 1 FUN - use scientific names OT
plants
sampung roint urf - vvet AA
50/20 Thresholds
Tree Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft
) Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
20% 50%
Cover
Species
Status
Tree Stratum 7 18
1
Acer- rubrum
25
Y
FAC
Sapling /Shrub Stratum 9 23
2
Ulmus rubra
10
Y
FAC
Herb Stratum 19 48
3
_ _
Woody Vine Stratum 0 0
4
_
5
_
Dominance Test Worksheet
6
Number of Dominant
7
Species that are OBL,
8
FACW, or FAC 8 (A)
19
Total Number of Dominant
10
Species Across all "Strata 8 (B)
35
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
Sapling /Shrub Plot Size (
15 ft
) Absolute
Dominant
,Indicator
FACW, or FAC 10000% (A/B)
Stratum _
% Cover
Species
Status
1
Acerrubrum
20
Y
FAC
Prevalence Index Worksheet
2
Bacchans hahmifolia
15
Y
FACW
Total % Cover of
3
Ulmus rubra
5
N
FAC
OBL species 0 x 1= 0
4
Fraxinusipennsylvanica
5
N
FACW
FACW'species 60 x2= 120
5
_
FAC,species 115 x'3= 345
6
FACU species 0 x4= 0
7
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
8
Column totals 175 (A) 465 (B)
9
Prevalence Index = B/A = 266
10
45
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
Herb'Stratum Plot Size (
5 ft
) Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
_ Rapid test for hydrophyt`c vegetation
% Cover
Species
Status
X Dominance test is >50%
1
Microstegium vimineum
25
Y
FAC
X Prevalence index is 53 0'
2
Carex lunda
20
Y
FACW
Morphological adaptations' (provide
3
Juncus effusus
20
Y
FACW
supporting data in Remarks,or on a
4
Smilax rotundifoha
20_
Y
FAC
separate, sheet)
5
Lonicera/aponica
10
N
FAC
Problematic hydrophytic,vegetation'
6
_
_ (explain)
7
—
Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology,must be
8
present unless disturbed or problematic
9
_
10
Definitions of Vegetation Strata
11
12
Tree - Woody plants 3,in (7 6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH) regardless of height
13
_
14
_
Sapling /shrub- Woody plantsdess than 3 in DBH and
15
greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
95
= Total Cover
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
Woody °Vine
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
size and woody plants less than 3'28 ft tall
Plot Size (
30 ft
)
Striatum
% Cover
Species
Status
Woody vines- All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
1
height
2
_
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
vegetation
0
= Total Cover
present? Y
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Army Corps of Engineers
100% of the dominant vegetation Is,FAC or wetter
I
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

SOIL
Sampling Point DP1 - Wet AA
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 -5
2 5Y 6/2
80
7 5YR 6/8
20
silt clay loam
6 -20
2 5Y 7/2
70
10YR 7/8
30
silt clay loam
*Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains
* *Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrx
Hydnc,Soil Indicators Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sods
—Dark Surface (S7)
Histisol (Al) Polyvalue 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 Sods (F19)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) (MLRA 147, 148) _(MLRA 136, 147)
Stratified Layers (A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix, (F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) X Depleted "Matrix (F3) ,Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark,Surface (A11) Redox, Dark Surface, (F6)
Thick Dark Surface�(Al2) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydnc sod present? Y
Remarks
Indicators of hydric sods are present
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Saddlebrook City/County Cabarrus Sampling Date 01/29/14
Applicant/Owner Carolina Development Services, LLC State NC Sampling Point DP2 - Wet AA & BB
Investigator(s) Kelly Thames, WPIT and Logan Hardin Section, Township, Range Midland
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) hdlslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope ( %) 0 -2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA Lat N35243974* Long W80 509093° Datum NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Misenheimer channery silt loam, 04% slopes (MsA) NWI Classification
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions,of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation sod or'hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Yes
Are vegetation sod or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present?
(If, needed, explain any answers in remarks)
5UMMAKY OF I-INUINU5
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
Hydnc sod present? Yes Is the sampled area within a wetland? Yes
Wetland hydrology present? Yes
Remarks
Data point Is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area This data point is representative of the lower
of Wetland AA and all of Wetland BB
HYDROLOGY
Wetland'Hydrology Indicators-
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two'required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is
required, check all „that apply)
_Surface,Sod,Cracks (136)
X Surface,Water (A1`)
True,Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface'(138)
X High Water Table (A2)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on,Lrving
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
X Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _ (C9)
Algal Mat'or,Crust (134)
_Sods (C6)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Imagery (67)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations
Surface water present? Yes
X No Depth (inches) 0” - 6"
Wetland
Water table present? Yes
X No Depth (inches) 0"
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
X No Depth (inches) 0"
present? Y_
(includewcapolary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Indicators of wetland hydrolgy are present
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

1
VtGt I All IUN -use scienwilamameS,Di
Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft ) Absolute Dominant Indicator
Cover Species Status
1
2 -
3
4 --
5
6
7
20% 50%
Absolute
Dominant
8
Herb Stratum Plot Size( 5 ft
)
17 43
9
0 0
Dominance Test Worksheet
Cover
10
Status
1
Microstegfum vimineum
20
0
= Total Cover
2
Sapling /Shrub
Absolute,
Dominant
Indicator
Plot Size ( 15 ft
Stratum
) % Cover
Species
Status
1 Bacchans hahmfoha
'25
Y
FACW
2 Lfquidambar styraciflua
15
Y
FAC
3 Salmnlgra
10
N
OBL
4 Ulmus alata
2
N
FACU
5
6
7
8
9
10
52 = Total Cover
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
85 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Absolute Dominant
Stratum Plot Size( 30 ft ) % Cover Species
1
2
3
4
5
Remarks (Include photo numbers,here or on a separate
US Army Corps of Engineers
0 = Total Cover
Indicator
Status
DP2 Wet AA &BB
20% 50%
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Herb Stratum Plot Size( 5 ft
)
17 43
Woody Vine Stratum
0 0
Dominance Test Worksheet
Cover
Species
Status
1
Microstegfum vimineum
20
Y
FAC
2
Carex,lunda
20
Y
FACW
3
Juncus effusus
20
Y
FACW
4
Scirpus cypennus
15
N
FACW
5
Lonicera japonica
5
N
FAC
6
Rubus argutus
5
N
FACU
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
85 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Absolute Dominant
Stratum Plot Size( 30 ft ) % Cover Species
1
2
3
4
5
Remarks (Include photo numbers,here or on a separate
US Army Corps of Engineers
0 = Total Cover
Indicator
Status
DP2 Wet AA &BB
Prevalence Index Worksheet
20% 50%
Tree St DP2 - Wet BB
0 0
Sapling /Shrub Stratum
10 26
Herb Stratum
17 43
Woody Vine Stratum
0 0
Dominance Test Worksheet
80
Number of Dominant
160
Species that are OBL,
40_
FACW, or FAC
5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
7
Species Across all Strata
5 (B)
Percent of Dominant
0
Species that are OBL,
0
FACW, or FAC
100 00 %1 (A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
Total % Cover of
OBL species
10
x 1 =
10
FACW species
80
x2=
160
FAC species
40_
x3=
120
FACU species
7
x4=
28
UPL species
0
x5=
0
Column totals
137
(A)
318 (B)
Prevalence4ndex = B /A,= 232
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
X Dominance test Is >50%
X Prevalence Index is <_3 0*
Morphological adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on a
_separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
—(explain)
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata
Tree - Woody plants,3 in (7 6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than'3 in DBH and
greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft'in
height
Hydrophytic
vegetation
present? Y
100% of the dominant vegetation is FAC or Wetter
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

4
SOIL
Sampling Point DP2 - Wet AA & BB
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 -4
2 5Y 6/2
90
7 5YR 5/6
10
silt clay loam
4 -10
2 5Y 6/2
70
7 5YR 5/6
30
silt clay loam
10 -20
2 5Y 711
60
10YR 5/6
40
clay loam
*Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered,or Coated Sand Grains
*'Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators*
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
Surface (S7)
Histisol (All)
—Dark
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) 2 cm Muck (A10) (li 147) '
Histic Epipedon (A2)
(MLRA 147„ 148) Coast' Praine,Redoi� (Al 6)`(MLRA 147, 148)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface,(S9) Piedmont, Floodplam Soils (F19)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
(MLRA 147„ 148) (MLRA 136, 147)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
X Depleted Matrix (F3) (Explain in Remarks)
—Other
Depleted Below bark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Redox Depressions (F8)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 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)
i
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if „observed)
Type
Hydric soil present? Y
Depth,(inches)
Remarks
Indicators of hydnc�soils are present
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

ti
WETLAND'DETERMINATION' DATA FORM'- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Saddlebrook
City /County Cabarrus Sampling Date 01/29/14
Applicant/Owner Carolina Development Services, LLC
State NC Sampling Point DP3 - Upland
Investigator(s) Kelly Thames, WPIT and Logan Hardin
Section, Township, Range Midland
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ) _hdlslope
Local relief (concave,, convex, none) none Slope ( %) 0 -2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)- MLRA Lat
N35 243974° Long W80 509093° Datum NAD83
Sod Map Unit Name Misenheimer channery silt loam, 04% slopes (MsA) NWI Classification
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes X No (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation sod or hydrology
significantly disturbed? Are "normal Yes
Are vegetation , sod or hydrology
naturally problematic? circumstances" present?
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic vegetation present? No
Hydnc sod present? No Is the sampled area within a wetland? No
Wetland hydrology present? No
Remarks
Data point is representative of a non- jurisdictional upland area
r:l'l 13exelcia
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required,
check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (A1)
_True Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Roots (C3)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Presence,of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Soils (C6)
_Saturation
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135) u
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial
_Other (Explain,in Remarks)
_Shallow Agwtard (D3)
Imagery (B7)
Microtopographic Relief (D4),
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
FAC'Neutral Test (D5)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Field Observations
Surface water present? Yes
No X Depth (inches)
Wetland
Water table present? Yes
No X Depth (inches)
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes
No X Depth (inches)
present? N
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
There are no Indicators of wetland hydrolgy present
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

t
1
VtGt 1 A I IUN - Use scierltitic names OT plants
Sampling Point DP3 - Upland
50/20 Thresholds
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
20% 50%
Tree Stratum Plot Size (
30 ft )
Cover
Species
Status
Tree St DP2 - Wet BB 0 0
1
Sapling /Shrub Stratum 2 6
2
Herb Stratum 10 26
3
Woody Vine Stratum 0 0
4
5
Dominance Test,Worksheet
6
Number of,Dominant
7
Species that ar&OBL,
8
FACW, or FAC 1 (A)
9
Total Number of Dominant
10
Species Across all Strata 3 (B)
0
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant
Species that are OBL,
Sapling /Shrub
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
FACW, or FAC 3333% (A/B)
Plot Size (
Stratum
15 ft )
% Cover
Species
Status
1 Bacchans halimifoha
_ 8
Y
FACW
Prevalence Index Worksheet
2 Ulmus alata
2
N
FACU
Total % Cover of
3 Lfgwdambar styraciflua
2
N
FAC
OBL species 0 x 1= 0
4
FAMspecies 8 x 2 = 16
5'
FAC species 10 x3= 30
6
_
FACU species 45 x4= 180
7
_
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
8
_ _
Column totals 63 (A) 226 (B)
9
Prevalence Index-7 B/A = 359
10
12
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic'Vegetation Indicators
Herb'Stratum Plot Size (
5 ft )
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
_ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
% Cover
Species
Status
Dominance,test is >50%
1 Rubus argutus
20
Y
FACU
_
Prevalence index 1&:53-0*
2 Andropogon vtrgtmcus
15
Y
FACU
_
Morphological adaptations' (provide
3, Lonfcera lapornca'
8
N
FAC
supporting data in Remarks,or on a
4, Sohdago,altimma
8
N
FACU
sheet)
5
_separate
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'
6
(explain)
7
_
Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be
8
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9
10
Definitions of Vegetation Strata
11
12
Tree - Woody plants 3 in (7 6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height
13
14 _ _
Sapling /shrub - Woody'plants less than 3 in DBH and
15
greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tall
51
= Total -Cover
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants,'regardless of
Woody Vine
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
size and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
Plot Size (
30 ft )
Stratum
%,Cover
Species
P
Status
Woody vines -All woody canes greater than 3 28 ft in
1
height
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5
vegetation
0
= Total Cover
present? N
US Army Corps of Engineers
or on a,
Less than 50% of the dominant vegetation Is FAC or wetter
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont, Region

t-
SOIL
Sampling Point DP3 - Upland
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth
(Inches)
- Matnx
Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type* Loc **
Texture
Remarks
0 -2
2 5Y 5/4
100
loamy clay
2 -5
2 5Y 6/3
100
loamy clay
5 -20
5Y 7/3
70
2 5Y 7/8
30
loamy clay
*Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains
* *Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matnx
Hydnc Soil Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
Surface (S7)
—Dark
Histisol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLIZA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
(MLRA 147, 148) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
(MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 136, 147)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Gleyed Matrix (F2) Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_Loamy
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) —Depleted
_Very
Matnx (F3) —Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Dark Surface (F7)
—Depleted
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Redox Depressions (178)
_
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_
Sandy Redox (S5)
Floodplain Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
_Piedmont
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer,(if'observed)
Type _
Hydnc,soibpresent? N
Depth (inches)
Remarks
There are no Indicators of hydric soils present
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains,and Piedmont Region

ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 8/21/2014
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
POC Mr Thomas Blackwell
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington District - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
East of the end of Pine Hill Road, south of Pelham 'Lane, and west of US
601 m Midland, NC
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT
DIFFERENT SITES)
State NC County /pansh /borough Cabarrus City- Midland
Lat 35 243947° N, Long 80 509093° W
Universal Transverse Mercator NAD 83
Name of nearest waterbody- UT to Muddy Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area
Non - wetland waters 354 linear feet 2' -4' width (ft) and /or 0.032 acre
Cowardin Class R4SB3
Stream Flow- Intermittent
'Wetlands 0 521 acre
Cowardin Class PFO1, PSS1
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):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination Date
® Field Determination Date(s)- January 28, 2014
1

T
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 this preliminary JD has declined to
exercise the option `to obtain an approved JD m this instance and at this time
2. In any circumstance where a `permit applicant obtains an individual' 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 Jess 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
JD constitutes the applicant's 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 undertaking any activity in
reliance on any form ,of Corps permit'author'ization based on a preliminary JD
constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in
any way by that activity, are jurisdictional waters of °the United States, and precludes ,any
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 applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
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
denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 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 CWA,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 "may be" 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

4
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply) -
checked items should be'included in case file and, where checked and requested,
ap "propnately reference sources ,below)
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant
USGS Map, Current Soils Map, Historic Soils Map, Topographic Map
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the applican't/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 24,000, Midland, NC, Dated 1996
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey
Citation Cabarrus County Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s) Cite name
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s)
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of
1929)
® Photographs ® Aerial (Name & Date) NC OneMap, 2010
or ® Other (Name & Date) Site photographs of stream channel,
January 2014
❑ Previous determinations) File no and date of response letter
❑ Other information (please specify)
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
3
vim'' ` 02'/05/14
Signature and date of
person, requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)

Site
Number
Latitude
Longitude
g
Cowardian
Class
Estimated
Aquatic Amount of
Resource in
Review Area
Class of Aquatic
Resource
Stream A
N35 243974°
W80 509093°
R4SB3
354 linear feet
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Wetland AA
N35 243974°
W80 509093°
PFO1 and
PSS1
0 48,acre
non - section 10 - wetland
Wetland BB
N35 243974°
W80 509093°
PSS1
0 041 acre
non - section 10 -- wetland

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
PhotoyaQe 1 Project No. 2013 -3232
Photograph A. View of Intermittent RPW Stream A, facing upstream.
Photograph B. View of the forested (upper) portion of Wetland AA, facing northeast.

Saddlebrook August 27, 2014
Photopatic 1 Project No. 2013 -3232
Photograph C. View of the early successional (lower) portion of Wetland AA, facing east.
Photograph D. View of Wetland BB, facing northwest.

't
Saddlebrook August 25, 2014
PhotopaQe 2 - Mitfi_,ation Site In estivation Project No. 2013 -3232
Photo Point 1. View of open water pond, facing west.
Photo Point 2. View of southern open water pond, berm, and northern open water pond, facing west.

o
Saddlebrook August 25, 2014
Photopaue 2 - Mitigation Site Investigation Proiect No. 2013 -3232
w
X 1 1 �1 • 1 11" // 1 ' 1

IV
Saddlebrook August 25, 2014
Photooaee 2 - Miti¢ation Site Investivation Project No. 2013 -3232
AL
' yjri
Photo Point 5. View of open water pond drainage from Bethel School Road, facing north.
Photo Point 6. View of open water pond below Bethel School Road, facing south.