20150251 Ver 1_401 Application_20150315

of wnrF9
Office Use Only
2 0 5 2 5 , Corps action ID no
o < DWQ p ojpo�l �no
Flo ;m Version�1�4- January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 29 or General Permit (GP) number
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corpse
❑ Yes ❑X 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
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification
❑X Yes ❑ No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ❑X 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 ❑X No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below
❑ Yes 0 No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Birchwood Commons
2b
County
Cabarrus
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Concord
2d
Subdivision name
2e
NCDOT only, T I P or state project no
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
Cook, Elizabeth Family LTD
3b
Deed Book and Page No
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
nn
3d
Street address
1221 Old Salisbury Road 119 ILI V "511111
3e
City, state, zip
Concord, NC 28205
3f
Telephone no
3g
Fax no
DENR -WATER RESOUR
3h
Email address
KNITTING
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify Buyer
4b
Name
Scott Gillespie
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Redwood Acquistion, LLC
4d
Street address
23775 Commerce Park Road, Suite 7
4e
City, state, zip
Beachwood, Ohio 44122
4f
Telephone no
216- 360 -9441
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
sgillespie @byredwood corn
S.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Len Rindner
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Leonard S Rindner, PLLC - Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
5c
Street address
10612 -D Providence Road, PMB 550
5d
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28277
5e
Telephone no
704 - 904 -2277
5f
Fax no
5g
Email address
len rindner @wetlands -epg com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1 a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
02- 029 -005 20
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35 409 Longitude -806615
1c
Property size
284 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project
Coddle Creek
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
Class C
2c
River basin
Rocky
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 site is currently undeveloped and predominately wooded General land use in the vicinity consists of residential and commercial developments
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property 0 13
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 881
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
Purpose of the project is for development of residential structures and access /road crossing
3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
Road crossing will be constructed using standard equipment - excavator, trackhoe, dump trucks, etc Culvert will be placed in stream
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?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
Comments
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
S.
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
6.
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b
If yes, explain
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ❑X 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
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b
Type of impact
2c
Type of wetland
2d
Forested
2e
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
2g Total Wetland Impacts:
0
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
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b
Type of impact
3c
Stream name
3d
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e
Type of
jurisdiction
3f
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
UT to Coddle Creek
PER
Corps
6
115
S2
Choose one
-
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
-
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
-
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
115
31 Comments
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

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 indivi ually list all open water impacts below
4a
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c
Type of impact
4d
Waterbody
type
4e
Area of impact (acres)
01 -
Choose one
Choose
02 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f Total open water impacts
4g Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below
5a
Pond ID number
5b
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
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)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other
6b
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Stream name
6e
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
B4 -
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h Total Buffer Impacts:
61 Comments
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Road crossings were minimized to only one and will utilize an existing road crossing that was installed in approximately 2005 Road crossings will be
constructed perpendicular to minimize impacts to stream channels
lb Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
The impact length is the minimum needed to create a safely sized public road way to access a residential development No other stream channels or
wetlands will be impacted as a result of this project
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a
Name of Mitigation Bank
3b
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type Choose one
Type Choose one
Type Choose one
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
3c Comments
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b
Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
Choose one
4d
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e
Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h
Comments
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009

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 ❑X No El
buffer mitigation
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 responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 7 of 10

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 ❑X 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
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
29
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require 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
Three storm water management facilities will be constructed to capture and treat storm water generated on the site which includes 2 sand filters and 1
Wet Pond as shown on the attached plan The plan has not been approved yet but has been designed to meet Concord's ordinances /requirements as
a delegated authority
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Local /State
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Concord
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
MORW
(check all that apply)
El Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
Yes ❑X No
attached?
S.
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 8 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑ Yes
❑X No
use of public (federal /state) land?
lb
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1 c
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter )
❑ Yes
❑ No
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
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
El Yes
❑X 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
❑X 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
No
cumulative effects are anticipated from the project
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
Wastewater
generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via installation of sewer lines
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009

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 ❑X No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
-
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Professional knowledge of the area and listed species Site does not support habitat for listed species known to occur in this area
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Professional knowledge of this area
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 ❑X No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office's HPOWEB GIS Service (http / /gis ncdcr gov /hpoweb /)
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Information from engineer and Cabarrus County's GIS website
ly
Amanda ""Leonard by Amanda Jones
DN cn= Amantla Jones
Amanda Jones for WEPG
ou= Leonard S Rintlner PLLC
PLLC
Wetlands & Environmental Planning
Jones Group — 11= amantlalones@wegantls-
epg com c =US
03 -06 -2015
Date 2015 03 06 15 15 44 -05 00
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 10 of 10

Wetlands and Envu onmental Planning Group
Agent Authorization Letter
Leonard S Rindner PLLC
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic
resource (i.e. stream /wetlands) identification /mapping and regulatory permitting. The
undersigned, who are either registered property owners or legally authorized to conduct due
diligence activities on the property as identified below, do hereby authorize associates of
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of applicable
permit(s) and /or certification(s).
Project/Site Name. Redwood - Concord "Birchwood Commons"
Property Address: 330 Coddle Market Drive NC, Concord, NC
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 02- 029 - 0005.20
Select one: 1 am an interested buyer /seller
Name: Scott Gillespie
Company: Redwood Acquisition, LLC
Mailing Address: 23775 Commerce Park Road, Suite 7, Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone Number: 216 - 360 -9441
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Property Owner/ Interested Buyer*
3.1.)S-
Date
* The Interested Buyer /Other acknowledges that an agreement and/or formal contract to purchase anchor conduct
due diligence activities exists between the current property owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases
where the property is not owned by the signatory
Chic lotto Office www wetlands -epg cord Asheville Office,
PMB
1 Providence Rd 1070 Tunel Rd , Bid I
5 55 0 n58
Chic lone, NC 28277
Suite 10 PMB 283
(704) 904 -2277 Asheville NC 28805
[phone]
Ic +c i inciner Dwetiands -epg coin 2 antanda cones`, wetlands -epg coin

N
C
N
a
Maps /Plans

gr
3 �
;54
Q r
It
b
Montandr.
Harold E
1
Tl
Poplar Tent Day +din Nwy
Winkler
Middle
o Ln NW rb
z
��
School
$'S`
b
v
COUNTRY ACRES
PoPlar Tent Rd
c
Po9
Grand Canyon Rd
FSITEJ
Primrose ��Z' I$ Wyoming Dr
C A
School at Afton
Villa-
Por
0414 Microsoft Corporation
tp billy
L ® 2014 Nokia
N`N
e pr
�d
z
'
QoVac���t
AsTON PARK
s•
Food Lion
F N- HILL!,
d
GE
ESTATES
z
. ,9
Zf2
�lb
v
a
Cabarrus G�
^
Charter
Academy
SITE
LAUREL PARK
1�
D
Cannon
MOUNTAIN
ra Z Kinsle�y Ave NV
o,
�
'NW
School
�
�
kn ['j1
LV
1worm LT, NW z
bing
�
0 201 Microsoft Corporation ®2014 Nokia
FIGURE N0.
1
Birchwood Commons
Cabarrus, NC
VICINITY MAP
Drawn By: I Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE:
10/8/14

IS
= J
LL w
LLI aWz
wa>
w co
0 � a)
O fmnNwN
U�J�Ya0o
Z a a < N
�a<nw2U
z 0- U J 0
3JOao�
0 -Uioo
N LL —N C,4 OU z
LO 4L N O 0
o° QC�MU
p W co
N z O
�zo
z 00a
a U
m
a�
3 cc
ccJ
v
m
c
V
r3o =
z U
O z
O
U 0
p U
O V)
O
3
U
w U
00
O
z
w
W
Ln
a `
O m
v
O
Q
X
aJ
r�
p vii
� O
U
3 �
f0 �?
Ln
V �
Q
L
U
i
O
V)

f"
1
P
'A
y
LYJ qk���
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC.
len. rindner @wetlands- epg.com
(704) 904 -2277
www. wetlands -epg. coni
� f '
r
1
n ti-
f
1
Ij
'
1'w'
i
i
•
1
n ti-
f
1
Ij

' � �?r,, _ .;',r✓• -=--ems -s '—?'- � ' ' -.`��, �r�'"" -•-- '� ► J41 :. �� /
, . �.,1 ` -�•_ ��i r f� I I — �--�' r
Ike oil
IIBM
�• • '
4 f,
�+
,4 � � SITE
-' ti ��._ �, - ,• -+ " /:� air r
SCALE LOCATION
- 1:24,000 ' Lat: 35.4090 -N
USGS QUAD
ACRES Long: - 80.6615 -W
`_�?- ,�'• • Kannapofis, NC 28,43 HUC: 03040105
FIGURE NO. REDWOOD — GEORGE LILES PKWY Drawn By: Reviewed By:
4 Cabarrus, NC NRN LSR
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group DATE:
Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC. USGS MAP — WATERS OF THE U.S.
\ ►- •,-
[e-mail] EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 10/8/14 /
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION

S•
�y
t
tl
y
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Ien.rindner@,wetlands-epg.com
(704) 904 -2277
www. wetlands -epg. corn
v
► MIe R
Mel
�r
J ' -
r
J w
r
3
s

N cnmp -uZ
,P
O IT w p o
p ;u z -o m
u) z
I
--4 0
y 0
z Co
�mOD
�IU , "f\
Fn
"IF
•� - ;;,,IAA .I �,, ;, :,'/_
I ` „,,,,\,
Ili 4;^ ,'
\�h�1
"All r
p
-I 50
In
\'
11 1
U ii'
CODDLE MARKET DRIVE
p
m
D
mr', „�;p',
co
m I y /;111;
1+
III m
9:
'btio' I� 11�( `I'Ijlll',`, \ C 00
;ItI \`\`r— - ---- -_ [ ==
I
-
- - --
I'
STREAM CROSSING EXHIBIT - OVERALL PLAN
SCALE 1” =250'
SHEET NO
DATE 2/9/15
gI■ SATRUMREPOINT
INC
MWOOD CONCORD
I
DAC
E i®
LM PARKWAY
DRAWN BY
•
K on no,
CHK'D BY MJK
218C E.0 Tremont Ave I Chador. N.M C.m-28203
tEL7n4_ st-t p n1w, 30270
1 OF 3
JOB NO 201401089

C,
�' i
U) m
x
�A 0�
C-)
,
D
z
z m
m m
r/ •0 O j
. Gi
, Gi a O
'
m
D -< m
zD�
Y� / rn '
c n
M rn x
mr
, � O
M:*
3 +00
2 +50
+ / \ \, (n D r
cO
" 7 Dm�
I .. m
+ r0
m m ;u
op r0
/1,
z p p tr'
i rCO�
;i,
xs
m mf.
I m c.'
`
y 0DC
! c) CO -P,
1 a%
� m
I m D �x
mCD�
OrOc'
1'//
,
n *X
1
I
m/'
1
Q
I co
1 1
n
f
STREAM
CROSSING EXHIBIT - ENLARGED PLAN
SCALE: 1•• =40
SHEET NO.
0 AwLR CAN Red
®E STRUCTUREPOINT
INC.
ED
REDWOOD CONCORD
DATE: 2/911 5
S
DRAWN BY: DAC
.
LLES PARKWAY
■
GOLD M 28i
CHK'D. BY: MJK
2 •eC c,.1 Tn,•,a t Aw I Ch,&M, N,, C,�m 28203
TEL 706.315,&WIFVI317.513.0270
.,...awcwmoa�.am
2 OF 3
JOB NO. 2014.01089

ummmmmmmm
10000000000
O
Ln
o
O
0
o
0
_ o
r�DO
�
cn
0
=
N NK�
O
X
mor
o
C
r
0 DN
D --159
C
0
m
+
IS
00
zD>
°
0
°
m D N
C7
ZI
N_
O
07 +
N
Zrn
0
m coo O
Z
C)
m
D
n vmi
m N �
—i
N
rn m +
v>o 0
O
O
Zc
D
C
o�
�
D
0
+
Ul
0
w
0
O
w
+
cn
O U1000000Q)O
t00—
000000000
NG4
4h,00-�1
STREAM CROSSING EXHIBIT - PROFILE
.■
� - -
SCALE 1 "
SHEET NO
DATE 2/
I
* /may, r't
0 1 RU 1 VREPOIN , RMWOM /�OMOM
Gr inc
S I
f GEOM L PPAMMAYY
DRAWN BY
CONCORD M 29M
CHK'D BY MJK
218C Easl Tremont Ave I Cherlotle NorCi Camlaa 28203
TEL[phone] IFAX3175430270
,,,w�wrevo�� rAm
3 OF 3
JOB NO 2014 01089

N
i
QJ
fCS
i
O
Stormwater Plans

■
0
D
AMERICAN
STRUCTUREPOINT
INC
March 6, 2015
Ms Amanda Jones
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S Rindner, PLLC
10612D Providence Road, PMB 550
Charlotte, North Carolina, 28277
Re Stream Crossing
Redwood — Concord (George Liles Parkway) — `Birchwood Commons"
330 Coddle Market Drive, Concord, NC
PIN14 ID 56004789740000, Property Real ID 02- 029 -0005 20
Estimated at 106 units
Dear Ms Jones
As part of the approval process, everything proposed will require permitting through the City of
Concord (being a delegated authority) such that all design and issued permits will be in
compliance with Concord's ordinances No land disturbing activities, including anything
associated with the stream crossing, will occur without prior approval
We understand, and fully accept, that any approval granted for the stream crossing is contingent
on approvals by the City of Concord
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate contacting me at 704 - 315 -8548
Very truly yours,
Civil Engineering Manager
MJK File

v
e
3
S
n
YS
G+�
n�
b
Know what's belOW.
Call boore you dig.
1. CONTRACTOR I6 FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING APPROPRIATE PARTIES
ANDS LU THATALLE XISTRNGUDUTIESARELOCATEDPRIORTO
BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR R RESPONSIBLE FOR PIAGNG BARRICADES, USING FUOGER6.
ETC. AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC.
3. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS, ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. ARE TO SE PLACED ACCORDING
TOSTANCMOS OFTHESOUTHCAROLINADEPAR OFTMMB TATION
A O COUNTY SPEMCATIONS.
4. SHORRNG WILL M CARRIED OUT INACCORD E Wi OSHA TRENCHING
STANDARDS. PART IBM, SUBPART P. OR AS AMENDED.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES
1. EARTHWORK OMNTllES HAVE NOT BEEN ESTIMATED AND SITE AS SHOWN IS NOT ASSUMED TO
REPRESENT A BALANCED CUT/FlIL CONDITION.
2. CONTRACTOR SMALL PERFORM HIS OWN ESTIMATES AND S/1ALL PROVIDE ALL EARTHWORK NECESSARY
TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN GRADE, INCLI NG ANY OFFSITE BORROW OR SPOILS REQUIRED.
3. CONTRACTOR SMALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE N ALL GRADED AREAS INCLUDING PAVING, LAWN
AND LANDSCAPE AREAS
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO OMER ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN
ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND SHALL WAIT FOR INSTRUCTION
PRIOR TO PROCEEDING,
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
WORK, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. CONTRACTOR IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES AND SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE AS A RESULT Or THIS CONTRACT.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BLEND NEW EARTHWORK SMOOTHLY TO TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING GRADE.
7. THE PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN DRIVES, PARKING LOTS AND
SIDEWALKS ARE FINISHED ELEVATIONS INCLUDING ASPHALT. REFER TO PAVEMENT CROSS SECTION
DATA TO ESTABLISH CORRECT SUBBASE DR AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ELEVATIONS TO BE
COMPLETED UNDER THIS CONTRACT.
B. PIPE LENGTHS SOWN ARE THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE USED TO COMPUTE PINE SLOPES AND
INVERTS AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO REPRESENT THE ACTUAL
QUANTITY OF PIPE REQUIRED.
9. CROSS SLOPE OF SIDEWALKS SHALL BE 1 /4-/FT. (MAX).
10. SLOPES SHALL BE GRADED NO STEEPER THAN 3:1 UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OR
UNDER DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER BASED ON FIELD CONDITIGNS
IT NO DISTURBANCE OR COMPACTION, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, TRAFFIC, BURIAL PITS,
TRENCHING OR OTHER LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY ALLOWED IN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
TREE BARRICADES MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE ANY DEMOLITION, GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION
BEGINS, AND NOT REMOVED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION.
12. NO (RUBBING WITHIN TREE PROTECTION ZONE. LEAVE SOIL AND LEAF UTTER UNDISTURBED,
SUPPLEMENT WITH 1 -2 INDIES OF MULCH. RE -SEED WITH GRASS ONLY IN DISTURBED /GRADED
ALAS
13. BRUSH, VINES AND SMALL TREES (,8 IN. DIA.. OR AS SMALL AS 2 IN. CALIPER) MAY BE HAND
CLEARED ONLY CUT RUSH WITH 1R01JND SURFACE. EXISTING TREES MAY BE LIMBED UP 6 FEET
(AT LEAST 2/3 OF THE BRANCHES SHOULD BE LEFT) TO IMPROVE VISIBIJTY.
14. EXPOSED TREE ROOTS MUST BE CLEANLY CUT WITH A SHARP PRUNING TOOL; BACKFIL ASAP
TO MINIMIZE EXPOSURE TO THE AR.
15, ALL ROOF DRAMS SHALL DISCHARGE AT GRADE AND DRAIN IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION AWAY
FROM BUILDINGS.
if"'; i
16. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ON CULVERTS INCLUDE FLARED END SECTIONS.
17, IN ORDER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FLOW LINES IN GUTTERS SHALL BE 0.5011 MINIMUM-
1 8, SEE DETAILS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL WHEN CONSTRUCTION DRIVEWAY CONNECTION TO SC 49 AND
MONTGOMERY ROAD.
19. SLOPE MATING AS SHOWN IS THE MINIMUM.
20. ALL DRIVEWAY SLOPES SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM GARAGE TOWARDS ROAD.
21, NO DRIVEWAY SLOPE SHALL EXCEED 85 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
22. NO IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO SPURRIER COURT UNTIL APPROVED BY THE YORK COUNTY
PLANNING COMMSSION AND YORK COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
23. APPROVAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS SHALL QU BASED ON THESE PUNS, AS AMENDED, AND SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY.
24. CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD CENTERLINE CONNECTION TO SPURRIER COURT SHALL BE PERMISSIBLE,
BUT CURB AND PAVEMENT INSTALLATION MUST STOP AT THE RADIUS POINTS ON SPURRIER
COURT.
25. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ALONG SPURRIER COURT IS BY RIGHT. INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS
OCCURRING N PHASE 28.
25. PLAN STATION. INCLUDING ACCESS ROAD. SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED N PHASE 1
27. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT AND NOT DESTROY THE PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
28. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, AND DEPTH OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO
COMMENCING ANY CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ENGINEER IF VARIATION EXISTS.
29. ALL RETAINING WALLS TO BE DESIGNED, SEALED, AND CERTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR'S STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER. DESIGNED PLANS FOR RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED, AND
PERMITTED BY YORK COUNTY. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE YORK COUNTY WITH
WRITTEN INSPECTION REPORTS, WHICH VERIFY THAT ALL ON -STE RETAINING WALLS WERE
CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED PER THE APPROVED DESIGN PLAN. THESE REPORTS SHALL BE
SIGNED AND SEALED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.
31.CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY DEPTH AND PIPE MATERIAL OF EXISTING FORCEMAIN ON THE
SITE_ IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE FORCEMAIN DURING ALL
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY DAMAGE WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR. PER YORK COUNTY STANDARDS. ALL LINES MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 3' OF
COVER. IF THIS REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE NET, IT WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLACE THE LINE WITH DUCTILE IRON PIPE. A YORK COUNTY UTILITY
INSPECTOR MUST BE ON SITE DURING FIELD VERIFICATION AND FOR ANY GRADING OVER OUR
EXISTING UTILITTEL164 PLEASE CALL ON-AN-W71 N HOURS IN ADVANCE TO SOOKLE THESE
INSPECTIONS
i
PROPOSED GRADING LEGEND
TOPOGRAPHY
Broce Pole
EXISTING INTERVAL
PROPOSED STORM
- - - - - -- CONTOUR
DRAINAGE PIPE
5e EXISTING INDEX
PROPOSED STORM
---- - - - - --- CONTOUR >Q�
CURB INLET
PROPOSED INTERVAL
PROPOSED STORM
CONTOUR
DROP INLET
PROPOSED INDEX
PROPOSED STORM
CONTOUR >�
JUNCTION BOX
EXISTING CREEK PROPOSED STORM
CENTERLINE HEADWALL
PROPOSED STORM
'- -- CREEK BUFFER FLARED END SECTION
AND RIP -RAP APRON
't I pp
I
1
�1
0
Q MERILA.
■ STRUCTUREPOINT
INC.
■
2txC Eac1 Tmmonl Ave 1 CMUlo1M. NaW C41vYro 28101
?EL 980.>rJB.BBTI I FAX 31TSgS2N
+win
BIRCHWOOD
COMMONS
330 Coddle Market Dr NW
Concord, NC
C.XO� It
It () REFERS TO
' SHEET SERIES.
..; ;C.x02
C.43.\
KIiYMAP . /••
CERTIFIED BY
NC ENGINEERING FIRM F -1119
ISSUANCE INDEX
DATE:
M.E. MATCH EXISTING 10/9/2014
EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROJECT PHASE:
BC BOTTOM OF CURB
TO TOP OF CURB ALL
BC BOTTOM OF WALL
TW TOP OF WALL REVISION SCHEDULE
TO �•� CURB ELEVATIONS NO, DESCRIPTION DATE
Bc odD.00 �a
WALL ELEVATIONS
BW 000.00 �
000.00 SPOT ELEVATIONS
�- FLOW ARROW YA 9
PROPOSED SWALE 11511918151 NATURE WALK
USE
- -- GENERAL UTIUtY WAS C -121 EROSION
--_� EASEMENT CONTROL MATTING
(SLOPES 2.1:1 OR STEEPER)
W A AM
IBUILDING
O
0 WALKWAY 2" SLOPE
ROADWAY XX AVERAGE
DRIVEWAY SLOPE
FRONT OF GARAGE
FIFE-0.2S
EXISTING
.0
TOPOGRAPHY
Broce Pole
LEGEND
®
I VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.)
Telephone Handhole
®
Curb Inlet
-4--
Telephone Marker
®
Drainage Manhole
-W­
Telephone Pedestal
e
Electric HOndhOle
$
Television Pedestal
0
Electric Meter
O
Test Hole
Fire Hydroni
®
Water Meter
Gas Meter
Water Valve
F-
Gas Valve
Guy Wire
a
Buried Electric Line
Cr
Light Pole
g
t
Buried Gas Line
Buried Telephone Line
d
Power Pole
w
Burled Water Line
®
Sanitary Manhole
one
Overhead Electric Line
T
Sign
tr
Top of Rim Elevation
Standpipe
Env
In Vert Elevation SCALE: 1' -80.
Coniferous Tree
rep
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
IRS
PVC
ostic Pipe
Deciduous Tree
Project Number 2014.01089
OVERALL GRADING
PLAN
C400

C
O
C
L
N
N
0
C
O
.4-J
v
N
Jurisdictional Determination
Information

,-P ,wekwwJ Cch� s
s
APPROXIMATE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AND STREAM DIMENSIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
Sa Ft
Acres
JURISDICTIONAL RPWs
LF
Acres
Jurisdictional Wetland A
274428
0 063
Jurisdictional Perennial RPW Tributary B
31
0 003
Jurisdictional Wetland C
34848
0 008
Jurisdictional Seasonal RPW Tributary E
850
012
Jurisdictional Wetland D
165528
0 038
Jurisdictional Wetland F
91476
0 021
Total Jurisdictional Wetlands
56628
0 13
Total Jurisdictional RPWs
881
0 123
TOTAL RPWs 881 0 123
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE 265
TOTAL WATERS OF THE US ACREAGE 0 253
TOTAL UPLAND ACRES 26 247
NOTES
Table 1 WOUS Summary
Table
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC

T, 717
Flow Path: Jurisdictional features on the site flow
an unnamed tributary to Coddle Creek, then to
Coddle Creek, then to Rocky River (TNW). �K
,F
1 r
SITE
.i
it
� 4
'i
J �
Flow Path
llllllllllllllllllllllllM1leS � E
0 0 ` 1 2 y0 Site Location
Sww Exi, 4ERE, DOLa ` r 1,!111; :' 1
,y
• ,y„ J �� _ 1' C M1r7'^Ylntlie. ®�F�r'�bf buWi:'
FIGURE NO. BIRCHWOOD COMMONS Drawn By: Reviewed By:
s L/Enfol" I Mecklenburg County, NC HAC LSR
Navigation Pathway Map
*Approximate boundary
DATE:
3/4/2015

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Birchwood Commons City /County Concord /Cabarrus Sampling Date 10/8/14
Applicant/Owner Redwood Acquisitions, LLC State NC Sampling Point UDP
Investigator(s) NRN Section, Township, Range
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc ) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope ( %) 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat 35 4090 N Long 80 6615 W Datum
Soil Map Unit Name ArA Armenia loam NWI classification
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation ' Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes F—v] No =
Are Vegetation ' Sod ' or Hydrology ' naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No =✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No 0✓
Remarks
Upland Data Point was taken approximately 30' NE of Wetland D
HYDROLOGY
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 (Al) =True Aquatic Plants (1314)
=Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
=High Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
=Drainage Patterns (610)
=Saturation (A3) =Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) =Moss Trim Lines (616)
=Water Marks (131) =Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment Deposits (132) =Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
=Crayfish Burrows (C8)
=Drift Deposits (133) =Thin Muck Surface (C7)
=Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron Deposits (135)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
=Shallow Aqutard (D3)
=Water - Stained Leaves (139)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic Fauna (613)
=FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= NoEZI
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point UDP
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Juniperus virginianus
35 Y FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 0 (A)
2 Ulmus alata
35 Y FACU
Robinia seudoacacia
3 p
25 Y FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata 7 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 0% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
90 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
Sapling Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
OBL species x 1 =
1 Ulmus alata
15 Y FACU
FACW species x 2 =
2 Robinia pseudoacacia
10 y FACU
FAC species x 3 =
3 Jurnperus virginianus
5 N FACU
FACU species x 4=
4
UPL species x 5 =
5
Column Totals (A) (B)
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
30
30'
= Total Cover
Q1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size
)
-
1 Ligustrum sinense
15 Y FACU
02 - Dominance Test is >50%
2
Q3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
Q4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3
4
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑Problematic
5
Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
6
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
7
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
'
30'
15 =Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
(7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
3
4
Sapling —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
5
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH
6
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
8
9
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11
ft (1 m) in height
12
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Parthenocissus quinquefolia
10 Y FACU
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
0
5
Present? Yes= No
10 = Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL
Sampling Point UDP
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 2 5YR 3/6 100 - - - - Clay
C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Sod Indicators
UHistosol (Al)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
=Dark Surface (S7)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
= Redox Dark Surface (F6)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
= Redox Depressions (F8)
=Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
=Umbric Surface (1713) (MLRA 136, 122)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
lion PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soi
=2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes= No =
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Birchwood Commons City /County Concord /Cabarrus
Applicant/Owner Redwood Acquisitions, LLC State NC
Investigator(s) NRN Section, Township, Range
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat 35 4090 N Long -80 6615 W
Soil Map Unit Name ArA Armenia loam NWI classification
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation - Soil , or Hydrology - significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes= No [
Are Vegetation - 'Soil - or Hydrology - naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
Sampling Date 10/8/14
_ Sampling Point C,D,F
Slope ( %) 0 -2
Datum
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes= No = within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No =
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
E�Surface Soil Cracks (66)
=Surface Water (Al)
=True Aquatic Plants (B14)
E=kparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
=High Water Table (A2)
=Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
=Drainage Patterns (610)
=Saturation (A3)
=Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) =Moss Trim Lines (B16)
=Water Marks (131)
=Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment Deposits (62)
=Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
=Crayfish Burrows (C8)
=Drift Deposits (63)
=Thin Muck Surface (C7)
ESaturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal Mat or Crust (64)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
[Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron Deposits (B5)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
=Shallow Aquitard (D3)
=Water - Stained Leaves (139)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic Fauna (613)
=FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches) 04
Water Table Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point C,D,F
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Salix nigra
35
Y OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 13 (A)
2 Platanus occidentalis
35
Y FACW
3 Fraxinus pennsylvamca
30
Y FACW
Total Number of Dominant
13
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
7
100
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by
Sapling Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
OBL species x 1 =
1 Platanus occidentalis
10
Y FACW
FACW species x 2 =
2 Fraxmus pennsylvamca
10
Y FACW
FAC species x 3 =
3 Salix nigra
10
Y OBL
FACU species x 4 =
4
UPL species x 5 =
5
Column Totals (A) (B)
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
30
30'
= Total Cover
01 Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size
-Rapid
1 Alnus serrulata
35
Y OBL
02 - Dominance Test is >50%
2 Corpus amomum
20
Y FACW
Q3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
3 Lindera benzoin
10
N FAC
Q4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
4 Sambucus nigra
10
N FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
5
6
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
7
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
30'
75
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1 Carex crirnta
15
Y OBL
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Boehmena cylindnca
15
Y FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
3 Sagittana latifolia
10
Y OBL
(7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
4 Juncus effusus
10
Y FACW
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
5
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH
6
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
8
9
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11
ft (1 m) in height
12
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height
50
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Lonicera japonica
30
Y FAC
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5
Present? Yes= No=
30
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point C,D,F
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
(inches)
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -10
2 5YR 5/1 90
2 5YR 5/8 10 RM PL
Loam clay
10 -12
2 5YR 6/1 50
2 5YR 5/8 50 RM M
Loam clay
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lininq, M= Matrix
Hydric Sod Indicators
=Histosol (Al)
=Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sods'
=2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
= Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
= Redox Depressions (F8)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
=Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Hydric Sod Present? Yes=✓ No =
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date
10/8/14 1 Evaluator I NRN
Easting
80 6615 W
Project
Birchwood Commons Perennial RPW B
Northin
35 4090 N
Total Points:
2
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
33.5
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
0
A. Geornorphology Geomorphology
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3 In- channel structure riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5 Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
1 1
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
1
9 Grade controls
0
05
1
1 5
1
10 Natural valley
0 1
05 1
1
1 5
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0 1
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology Subtotal
135
a Man -made ditches are not rated see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13 Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
1
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
1 5
1
16 Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
0
05
1
1 5
1
17 Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
Hydrology Subtotal
120
C. Biology
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22 Fish
0
0 5
1
1 5
1
23 Crayfish
0
05
1
1 5
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
1 5
1 5
25 Algae
0
05
1
1 5
0
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0 75, OBL= 1 5, Other= 0
0
Biology Subtotal
80
* perennial streams may also be identified usinq other methods See paqe 35 of NCDWQ manual
Notes
Adapted from NCDWQ Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Ongms
(version 4 11)

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date
10/8/14 I Evaluator I NRN
Easting
80 6615 W
Project
Birchwood Commons Perennial RPW E
Northing
35 4090 N
Total Points:
2
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
39.5
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
0
A. Geomorphology
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3
3 In- channel structure riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5 Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9 Grade controls
0
05
1
1 5
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
1 5
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology Subtotal
175
a Man -made ditches are not rated see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13 Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
1 5
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
1 5
1
16 Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
0
05
1
1 5
1 5
17 Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
Hydrology Subtotal
130
C. Biology
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22 Fish
0
05
1
1 5
1
23 Crayfish
0
05
1
1 5
1
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
1 5
1
25 Algae
0
05
1
1 5
0
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0 75, OBL= 1 5, Other= 0
0
Biology Subtotal
90
* perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See page 35 of NCDWQ manual
Notes
Adapted from NCDWQ Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
OnIns
(version 4 11)

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U S Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook
SECTION i BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD)
B DISTRICT OFFICE, FiLE NAME, AND NUMBER
Applicant Redwood Acquistion, LLC
Site Birchwood Commons
Form for Jurisdictional Perennial RPW B, Jurisdictional Perennial RPW E, Jurisdicational Wetland A, Jurisdicational Wetland C,
Jurisdictional Wetland D and Jurisdicational Wetland F
C PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
State NC County/parish /borough Cabarrus City Concord
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format) Lat 35 4090° N, Long -80 6615° W
Universal Transverse Mercator
Name of nearest waterbody Coddle Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows Rocky River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105 Rocky
® Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential Jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request
EJ Check if other sites (e g , offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form
D REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
❑ Office (Desk) Determination Date
❑ Field Determination Date(s)
SECTION iI SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
There Are no navigable waters of the US within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) Jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce
Explain
B CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
There Are waters ofthe US within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area [Required]
1 Waters of the U S
a indicate presence of waters of U S in review area (check all that apply) i
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters including isolated wetlands
b Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U S in the review area
Non - wetland waters 881 linear feet 6 width (ft) and /or 0 123 acres
Wetlands 0 13 acres
c Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on Established by OIIWM
Elevation of established OHWM (if known)
2 Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check If applicable) a
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below
Z For purposes of this form an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e g , typically 3 months)

❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and /or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional
Explain
' Supporting documentation is presented in SeLtion III F

SECTION iiI CWA ANALYSIS
A TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III A 1 and Section III D 1 only, if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III A 1 and 2
and Section III D 1 , otherwise, see Section III B below
1 TNW
Identify TNW
Summarize rationale supporting determination
2 Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is ` adjacent"
B CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT iS NOT A TNW) AND iTS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY)
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i e tributaries that typically flow year -round or ha-*e continuous flow at least seasonally (e g , typically 3
months) A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional if the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III D 2 If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section iII D 4
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW if the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III B 1 for
the tributary, Section III B 2 for any ons►te wetlands, and Section IIi B 3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both ons►te
and offsite The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III C below
1 Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(►) General Area Conditions
Watershed size 200suare miles
Drainage area 95 acres- -
Average annual rainfall 44 inches
Average annual snowfall 0 inches
(n) Physical Characteristics
(a) Relationship with TNW
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW
Project waters are 4015 river miles from TNW
Project waters are 41 (or Iess) river miles from RPW
Project waters are 5 -10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Project waters are I (or less ) aerial (straight) miles from RPW
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries Explain
Identify flow route to TNW' On -site, jurisdictional features flow into an unnamed tributary of Coddle Creek, then to
Coddle Creek, then to Rocky River (TNW)
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e g , tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW

Tributary stream order, if known 1
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apnly)
Tributary is ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man -made) Explain
❑ Manipulated (man - altered) Explain
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate)
Average width 6 feet
Average depth +/ -3 feet
Average side slopes 1
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply)
® Silts ® Sands
❑ Cobbles ® Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation Type /% cover
❑ Other Explain
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e g , highly eroding, sloughing banks] Explain
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes Explain
Tributary geometry Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope) %
(c) Flow _
Tributary provides for Seasons
Estimate average number of flow events in review area /year 6 -10
Describe flow regime
Other information on duration and volume
Surface flow is Discrete and confined Characteristics
Subsurface flow Unk wno nwno n Explain findings
❑ Dye (or other) test performed
Tributary has (check all that apply)
® Bed and banks
® OHWM' (check all indicators that apply)
• clear natural line impressed on the bank
❑
• changes in the character of soil
❑
❑ shelving
❑
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
❑ sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑
❑ other (list)
❑ Discontinuous OHWM' Explain
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
It factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
❑ High Tide Line indicated by ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum,
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings,
❑ physical markings /characteristics ❑ vegetation Imes /changes in vegetation types
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list)
(in) Chemical Characteristics
Characterize tributary (e g , water color is clear, discolored, oily film, water quality, general watershed characteristics, etc )
Explain watercolor is clear -no signs of pollutants
Identify specific pollutants, if known
'A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e g , where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices) Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e g , flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break
'Ibid

(iv) Biological Characteristics Channel supports (check all that apply)
® Riparian corridor Characteristics (type average width) Forested /25 -50ft
® Wetland fringe Characteristics Forested wetland areas within abutting RPW floodplams
❑ Habitat for
❑ Federally Listed species Explain findings
❑ Fish/spawn areas Explain findings
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species Explain findings
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity Explain findings
2 Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into iNW
(i) Physical Characteristics
(a) General Wetland Characteristics
Properties
Wetland size acres
Wetland type Explain
Wetland quality Explain
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries Explain
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW
Flow is Pick List Explain Wetlands located adjacent to perennial and up and downslope of intermittent channels
having flows resulting from precipitation events
Surface flow is Pick List
Characteristics
Subsurface flow Peek List Explain findings
❑ Dye (or other) test performed
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection Explain
❑ Ecological connection Explain
❑ Separated by berm /barrier Explain
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are— Pick List river miles from TNW
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Flow is from R_ckList _
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplam
(u) Chemical Characteristics
Characterize wetland system (e g, water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface, water quality, general watershed
characteristics, etc ) Explain
Identify specific pollutants, if known
(in) Biological Characteristics Wetland supports (check all that apply)
❑ Riparian buffer Characteristics (type, average width) ,
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover Explain
❑ Habitat for
❑ Federally Listed species Explain findings
❑ Fish /spawn areas Explain findings
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species Explain findings
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity Explain findings typical wetland species - amphibians, etc
3 Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis

For each wetland, specify the following
Directly abuts9 (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts9 (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological chemical and physical functions being performed Onsrte wetlands and jurisdictional
RPW's provide habitat for herpetofauna and macromvertebrates These wetlands have the capacity to provide nutrients and organic
carbon to downstream food webs Wetlands provide flood storage during rain events and ground water recharge during dry periods
The wetlands also trap and filter pollutants before reaching seasonal /perennial RPWs on site and Coddle Creek
C SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and /or biological integrity of a TNW
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e g between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW) Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplam is not solely determinative of significant nexus
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook Factors to consider include, for example
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW9
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding nesting spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW9
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream toodwebs9
• Does the tributary in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical or
biological integrity of the TN W"
Note the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below
1 Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III D
2 Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III D
3 Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III D
D DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY)
1 TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands Check all that apply and provide size estimates m review area
❑ TNWs linear feet width (ft) Or acres
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs acres
2 RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial Perennial RPW Band E show typical morphology and flow of perennial streams for this region and the
determination is supported by the accompanying Stream Reach Evaluation Forms
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally' (e g typically three months each year) are

❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally' (e g , typically three months each year) are
,jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section iII B Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally
Provide estimates for, jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply)
® Tributary waters 881 linear feet 6 width (ft)
❑ Other non - wetland waters acres
Identify type(s) of waters
3 Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is, jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III C
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply)
❑ Tributary waters linear feet width (ft)
❑ Other non - wetland waters acres
Identity type(s) of waters
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year -round Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III D 2, above Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW Wetland A and Wetland C are both directly abutting perennial RPW B with no break in
jurisdiction Wetland D abuts both perennial RPW B and E with no break in .jurisdiction Wetland F is directly
abutting perennial RPW E with no break in jurisdiction
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow ` seasonally " Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111 B and rationale in Section III D 2, above Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW
Provide acreage estimates tor,jurisdictional wetlands in the review area 0 13 acres
5 Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are, jurisidictional Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III C
Provide acreage estimates tor. jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres
6 Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdu.tional Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III C
Provide estimates for, jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres
7 Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9
As a general rule the impoundment of a, jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U S " or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below)
E ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE1 WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) "
'See Footnote # 3
To complete the analysis reter to the key in Section iII D 6 of the Instructional Guidebook
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps /EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos

❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce
0 Interstate isolated waters Explain
❑ Other factors Explain
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination
Provide estimates for Jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply)
❑ Tributary waters linear feet width (ft)
❑ Other non - wetland waters acres
Identity type(s) of waters
❑ Wetlands acres
NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in SWANCC, the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
`Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR)
❑ Waters do not meet the `Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for Jurisdiction Explain
❑ Other (explain, if not covered above)
Provide acreage estimates for non - Jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of Jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i e , presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply)
❑ Non - wetland waters (i e , rivers, streams) linear feet width (ft)
❑ Lakes /ponds acres
❑ Other non - wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource
❑ Wetlands acres
Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus' standard, where such
a finding is required for Jurisdiction (check all that apply)
❑ Non - wetland waters (i e , rivers, streams) linear feet width (tt)
❑ Lakes /ponds acres
❑ Other non - wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource
❑ Wetlands acres
SECTION IV DATA SOURCES
A SUPPORTING DATA Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall 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
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Citation
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s) Cite name
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s)
❑ FEMA /FIRM maps
❑ 100 -year Floodplam Elevation is (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs ® Aerial (Name & Date)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date)
❑ Previous determination(s) File no and date of response letter

❑ Applicable /supporting case law
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature
❑ Other information (please specify)
B ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD