20150530 Ver 1_401 Application_20150515

Carolina Wetland Sernces
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 Pennitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
Date: 5/26/2015
CWS Project #: 2015 -3530
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
A
p
D 9'
1
5/26/2015
5
Application for WQC 3890
2
5/26/2015
1
Application Fee ($240)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit _
❑As requested [—]Returned for corrections
❑For review and comment
copies for approval
copies for distribution
❑Return corrected prints
❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen, Please find attached five copies of the Preconstruction Notification and application for
WQC 3890 for the Indian Trail Town Hall project. A check for the application fee of $240 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
A71- (!�. A;X�-
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

S. i!
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet 2 0 1 5 0 5 3 0
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name:
Indian Trail Town Hall
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant:
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. Mr. Gregg Anhmann, P-WS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached
4. Related /Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: 0.15 miles northwest of the intersection of Matthews - Indian Trail Road and N.
Indian Trail in Indian Trail. North Carolina.
6. Subdivision Name: n/
7. City: Indian Trail
8. County: Union
9. Lat: N35.0813610 Long: W80.670622° (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Matthews, NC Quadran )zle, dated 1988
11. Waterway: UT to South Fork Crooked Creek
12. Watershed: Yadkin (HU# 03040105)
13. Requested Action:
• Nationwide Permit # 39 @ ; 4
General Permit #
�� D
• Jurisdictional Determination Request MAY 2 8 2015
Pre -A pp lication Request 4ni p ; ..-
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site /Waters Name:
Keywords:

0
�) cltws
Carolina Wetland Services
May 26, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
866 - 527 -1177 (office)
704- 527 -1133 (fax)
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR— Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
512 N. Salisbury St
9th Floor Archdale Building
Raleigh, NC 27603
Subject: Jurisdictional Delineation and Request for Verification and Pre - Construction
Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Water Quality
Certification No. 3890
Indian Trail Town Hall
Indian Trail, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Dear Mr. Elliott:
The Indian Trail Town Hall site is approximately 15 acres in extent and is located on Matthew - Indian
Trail Road in Indian Trail, North Carolina (Figure 1, attached). The purpose of this project is to
construct a Town Hall facility for the Town of Indian Trail. On behalf of the Town of Indian Trail,
Woolpert has sub - contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401
permitting services for this project.
Applicant Name: Town of Indian Trail, POC: Mr. Joseph Fivas
Mailing Address: Box 2430 Indian Trail, NC 28079
Phone Number of Owner /Applicant: 704.821.5401
Street Address of Project: 0.15 miles northwest of the intersection of Matthews - Indian Trail Road
and N. Indian Trail Road in Indian Trail, NC
Tax Parcel ID: portion of 07105011
Waterway: UT to South Fork Crooked Creek
Basin: Yadkin (HU# 03040105)
City: Indian Trail
County: Union
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35.0813617 °, W80.670622°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Matthews, NC dated 1988
Current Land Use
The project area is approximately 15 acres in extent and is comprised of wooded areas and a
maintained field (Figure 2, attached). Typical on -site vegetation includes American elm (Ulmus
americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica).
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS- INC.NET

Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Proiect No. 2015 -3530
According to the Soil Survey of Union County' (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on -site soils consist of Badin
channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (BdB2) and Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent
slopes (CmB).
Badin channery silty clay loam soils are well drained and exhibit moderate permeability. Cid channery silt
loam is moderately well drained to poorly drained and exhibits slow permeability. Neither Bardin channery
silty clay loam (BdB2) nor Cid channery silt loam (CmB) are listed in the North Carolina Hydric Soils List
for Union County2 or on the National Hydric Soils List.
Jurisdictional Determination
On May 7, 2015, CWS scientist Gregg Antemann, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) field -
reviewed Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. within the project area. Jurisdictional areas were
delineated (flagged in the field) using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Routine On -Site
Determination Method. This flagging was surveyed with a submeter Trimble GPS unit and mapped
using GIS software. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual', the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook', with further
technical guidance from the Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplement, dated April 2012.
• Wetland Determination Data Form representative of jurisdictional wetland areas is attached as DPI
• Wetland Determination Data Form representative of non -j urisdictional, upland areas is attached as
DP2. The locations of these data points are identified as DPI -DP2 on Figure 5 (attached).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) guidance. These classifications include sampling with a D-
shaped dip net, photographic documentation, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which
a channel changes classification) within each on -site stream channel. NCDWR Stream Classification
Forms representative of Streams A and B are attached (SCP1 and SCP2, respectively). The locations
of these stream classification points are identified as SCP1 and SCP2 on Figure 5 (attached).
Results
The results of the on -site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are two jurisdictional
stream channels (Streams A and B) and one jurisdictional wetland area (Wetland AA) located within the
project area (Figure 5, attached). On -Site waters include unnamed tributaries (UTs) to South Fork Crooked
Creek. South Fork Crooked Creek is part of the Yadkin River basin (HU# 03040105)' and is rated "Class C
Waters" by the NCDWR. On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 0.67 acre. On -Site
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are summarized in Table 1 (next page).
i United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1991 Soil Survey of Union County, North
Carolina
2 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999 North Carolina Hydria Soils List, USDA -
NRCS North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
3 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010 2010 National Hydric Soils List by State
4 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
6 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 Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi
"HU #" is the Hydrologic Unit Code U S Geological Survey, 1974 Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina
2

x
Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Table 1. Summary of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Perennial RPW s
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) are those that typically have year -round flow. These
streams typically have greater biological resources than Seasonal RPWs and Non -RPWs and are capable of
supporting those resources that require perennial flow. This section describes each on -site Perennial RPW
stream and the field observations supporting these determinations.
Stream A (R5UB2') flows southeast across the project area for approximately 609 linear feet (Figure 5,
attached). Stream A exhibited strong continuity of channel bed and bank, moderate flow, and an average
ordinary high water width of 2 to 5 feet. Biological sampling within Stream A revealed a weak presence of
crayfish and a moderate presence of amphibians. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is
present year round in a typical year. Stream A was classified as a Relatively Pennanent Water with
perennial flow (RPW), according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 41 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 31.75 out of a possible 63
points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, attached).
Photograph A (attached) is representative of Perennial RPW Stream A.
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 B (R4SB410) flows east across the project area for approximately 33 linear feet before discharging
to Wetland AA (Figure 5, attached). Stream B exhibits moderate continuity of channel bed and bank, weak
sinuosity and flow, and an average ordinary high water width of 3 to 6 feet. Observations within Stream B
8 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 -round flow, and seasonal
streams that have continuous flow at least seasonally Two classifications ofjunsdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and
connection to TNWs These classifications include 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
9 R5UB2 = Rivenne Unknown Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States, Cowardian eta/ 1979
11 R4SB4 = Rivenne Intermittent Streambed, Sand Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Cowardian et
al 1979
Jurisdiction
z'Sireajw ,�`.'
;NCDWR'` .:
�USAG�E; FI,xAppiox:'�
Jurisdictional
Cassification '
Steam
' Stcean�
Len tli :
Approz.5
5;
USACE /EPA
Feature
Rapanos,-,
Intermittent /;
° ,-
�Ro�nt
; Classification
�Assessment,,
°Einear��E�p
creage<<
Classificatiott8
Perennial' _
(SCP)iyn,
Score. `:
Score "'; "
jSFeet'(lfYL"
ac
� ) R;
�
x
PerrePnn al
Stream A
Perennial
SCP1
31 75
41
609
0.06
Stream B
Seasonal RPW
Intermittent
SCP2
20
52
33
0 002
Streain,Total,
x0:0'62�ac i
Wetland AA
Directly Abutting RPW
-
-
-
-
0.61
�- << Weiland4otal
= �' �ri
X0:61
Jurisdicttional Waters Total'
642;1I
-.6Tac`,-
Perennial RPW s
Perennial Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) are those that typically have year -round flow. These
streams typically have greater biological resources than Seasonal RPWs and Non -RPWs and are capable of
supporting those resources that require perennial flow. This section describes each on -site Perennial RPW
stream and the field observations supporting these determinations.
Stream A (R5UB2') flows southeast across the project area for approximately 609 linear feet (Figure 5,
attached). Stream A exhibited strong continuity of channel bed and bank, moderate flow, and an average
ordinary high water width of 2 to 5 feet. Biological sampling within Stream A revealed a weak presence of
crayfish and a moderate presence of amphibians. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is
present year round in a typical year. Stream A was classified as a Relatively Pennanent Water with
perennial flow (RPW), according to USACE/EPA guidance. Perennial RPW Stream A scored 41 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 31.75 out of a possible 63
points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating perennial status (SCP1, attached).
Photograph A (attached) is representative of Perennial RPW Stream A.
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 B (R4SB410) flows east across the project area for approximately 33 linear feet before discharging
to Wetland AA (Figure 5, attached). Stream B exhibits moderate continuity of channel bed and bank, weak
sinuosity and flow, and an average ordinary high water width of 3 to 6 feet. Observations within Stream B
8 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 -round flow, and seasonal
streams that have continuous flow at least seasonally Two classifications ofjunsdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and
connection to TNWs These classifications include 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
9 R5UB2 = Rivenne Unknown Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States, Cowardian eta/ 1979
11 R4SB4 = Rivenne Intermittent Streambed, Sand Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Cowardian et
al 1979

Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
revealed a weak presence of crayfish. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present for at
least three months in a typical year. Stream B was classified as a Relatively Permanent Water with seasonal
flow (Seasonal RPW), according to USACE /EPA guidance. Seasonal RPW Stream B scored 52 out of a
possible 100 points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and 20 out of a possible 63
points on the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP3, attached).
Photograph B (attached) is representative of Seasonal RPW Stream B.
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as: "Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. "" The USACE uses three parameters to identify jurisdictional wetlands. These parameters
are as follows: 1) Hydrophytic Vegetation, 2) Wetland Hydrology, and 3) Hydric 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 jurisdictional wetland and the field observations
that led to their determinations.
Wetland AA (PFO1 B 12) is approximately 0.61 acre in extent and is located directly abutting Seasonal RPW
Stream B in the southwestern portion of the project area (Figure 5, attached). Wetland AA exhibits low
chroma soils (2.5Y 5/2) with many distinct mottles (7.5YR 5/6). Dominant vegetation in this wetland
includes American elm, sweetgum, willow oak, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), poison ivy, and
Virginia creeper. A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland AA is attached as DP1.
Photographs C and D (attached) are representative of Wetland AA.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 17, 2015 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 this submittal, a response from the SHPO has not
yet been received. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service13 and the Union County Historic
Preservation Commission14 database and found no areas or properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance within the project limits.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) on May 15, 2015 to
determine the presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical
habitat located within the project area. In a response dated May 15, 2015, the NCNHP stated,
"...there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or
conservation /managed areas within the proposed project boundary." A copy of the correspondence is
attached.
"Environmental Laboratory 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ", Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
12 PF01 B = Palustrme Forested Broad - Leaved Deciduous, Saturated Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States, Cowardian et al 1979
13 http Hgis ncdcr gov /hpoweb/ Accessed May 17, 2015
14 http //www co union nc us/ LrvmgHere/ UmonCountyHistoncPreservationCommission aspx #346979 - documentation Accessed May 17,
2015

Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of the project is to construct a town hall facility and associated outdoor space for the
Town of Indian Trail. This project is necessary to provide facilities to govern and meet the growth
and demand of an area of Union County that is experiencing significant population growth due to its
proximity to Matthews and Charlotte. Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters are necessary to
construct roadway access and to connect sewer services to existing infrastructure. The project site
was selected due to its location and proximity to the center of the Town of Indian Trail.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The Indian Trail Town Hall project has been designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters wherever
possible and minimize the extent of necessary impacts to jurisdictional waters. The following
paragraphs outline the avoidance and minimization efforts undertaken during the planning and design
phase of this project
Avoidance
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. have been avoided wherever possible. The proposed impacts are
unavoidable due to the topography of the site, parcel orientation, and project goals. In areas where
impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are unavoidable, steps have been taken to minimize both
the extent and severity of the impacts.
An Alternatives Analysis was performed to determine the least damaging environmental alternative
that meets the primary goal of the project. The goal of the project is to provide a town hall facility
and associated outdoor space for the Town of Indian Trail. A no -build alternative and three potential
designs were assessed. Descriptions of each of the alternatives are given below.
No Build Alternative
Initially, a no -build alternative was considered. This alternative would result in not providing a town
hall facility for the Town of Indian Trail. With the continued growth in Indian Trail and northwestern
Union County, a no -build alternative would result in a lack of having facilities for elected officials and
town business. The need for Indian Trail town government facilities is critical as the area is rapidly
expanding. Therefore, the no -build alternative was eliminated from further consideration, since it
would not be reasonable or feasible given the projected growth, and ongoing and future development
within the area.
Town Hall Design I
The project's original design proposes a round -about at the facility entrance (Figure 6, attached)
Approximately 320 linear feet of additional culvert to convey Perennial RPW Stream A beneath the
proposed round -about and existing road. Additionally, in order to tie the proposed sanitary sewer line
to the existing sewer line, a utility crossing and manhole is proposed to impact Wetland AA.
Approximately 226 linear feet of Perennial RPW Stream A and 0.050 acre of Wetland AA are
proposed to be impacted by this design. Town Hall Design 1 proposes the most impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and therefore is eliminated from further consideration. Design
alternatives and proposed impacts are summarized in Table 2 (next page).

Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Town Hall Design 2
The second design aeration of the proposed Indian Trail Town Hall facilities eliminates the round-
about at the entrance and proposes a culvert extension (Figure 7, attached). Additionally, the
proposed sanitary sewer line crosses the wetland at a different location from the first design.
Approximately 128 linear feet of Perennial RPW Stream A and 0.082 acre of Wetland AA is proposed
to be impacted by this design. Town Hall Design 2 proposes to reduce the stream impacts, but
increase the wetland impacts. Therefore, this design is eliminated from further consideration. Table 2
(below) summarizes the design alternatives proposed impacts.
Town Hall Design 3 (Preferred Design)
The third design iteration of the proposed Indian Trail Town Hall facilities is the preferred design and
impacts the least amount of jurisdictional waters of the U S. This design eliminates the round -about at
the entrance, proposes a culvert extension, and reduces the proposed building footprint of the
proposed Town Hall (Figure 8, attached). Additionally, the proposed sanitary sewer line crosses the
wetland in the best practicable location with the goal of limiting impacts. Approximately 128 linear
feet of Perennial RPW Stream A and 0.022 acre of Wetland AA are proposed to be impacted by this
design. Town Hall Design 3 proposes to reduce the permanent stream and wetland impacts to the
maximum extent practicable. This design is the preferred design. Table 2 (below) summarizes the
design alternatives and proposed impacts
Table 2. Summary of proposed design iterations for Indian Trail Town Hall.
Minimization
Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are limited to 128 linear feet of Perennial RPW stream
channel and 0.022 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, which includes 33 linear feet of permanent stream
impacts and 0.016 acre permanent wetland impacts (Table 3, page 8). The construction corridor will
not exceed the 30 -foot maximum corridor width through wetlands as a condition of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification. The permanent maintained portion of the right -of -way (R /W) corridor
will not exceed 10 feet in width through wetlands. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will
be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Anti -seep collars will be installed at the
downstream wetland boundary and every 150 feet up the gradient until the sewer trunk exits the
wetland. All channel work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification
No. 3890. In addition, all permanent maintained rights -of -way through wetlands will be permanently
marked in the field to avoid mowing and maintenance of additional wetland areas.
0
? Town ~Half =`.•
v Town�Hall �
Town Hall Desiko�3
p «Type „ofil =' -”
.t¢ k. s" °;`° '
°21;
-D' es�gnl2�1f91�
T f j
(Preferred)g(F�igure
;(Figure-7), V1 ), V1
*' 3
.8
°``''ty
Temporary
60
60
95
t Stream Impacts (Ifj;nN
Permanent
166
68
33
` = ='
Temporary
0.017
0.028
0.006
°s` "(ac)
Permanent
0.033
0.054
0.016
�;�WetlandImpact
"- TotalStreamkIm acts" 1
2 "26 „Ifd <_
X128 -1f '':,,128.1f=ti
:•
,,E Total WetWO lmpacts (ac) _=
5 ­""0 05' ” ;
rr : , w0:082 ac �
�� ` <; ;" 0:022�ac-
ry .
30 : -' °�
..'
Minimization
Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are limited to 128 linear feet of Perennial RPW stream
channel and 0.022 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, which includes 33 linear feet of permanent stream
impacts and 0.016 acre permanent wetland impacts (Table 3, page 8). The construction corridor will
not exceed the 30 -foot maximum corridor width through wetlands as a condition of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification. The permanent maintained portion of the right -of -way (R /W) corridor
will not exceed 10 feet in width through wetlands. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will
be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Anti -seep collars will be installed at the
downstream wetland boundary and every 150 feet up the gradient until the sewer trunk exits the
wetland. All channel work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification
No. 3890. In addition, all permanent maintained rights -of -way through wetlands will be permanently
marked in the field to avoid mowing and maintenance of additional wetland areas.
0

Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Unavoidable permanent impacts associated with the construction of the Indian Trail Town Hall include
the relocation of a portion of Perennial RPW Stream A and the mechanized clearing of a portion of
Wetland AA, the on -site forested wetland. Permanent impacts will be the result of relocating a portion
of Stream A to flow through a proposed culvert extension and a 10 -foot wide permanently maintained
easement for a sanitary sewer crossing through a portion of the on -site forested wetland.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. total 128 linear feet of impacts to Perennial RPW Stream A
and 0.022 acre of wetlands (Figure 8, attached) Impacts to Stream A include 95 linear feet of temporary
impacts and 33 linear feet of permanent impacts. Impacts to Wetland AA include 0.006 acre of .
temporary impacts and 0.016 acre of permanent impacts.
Stream Impacts
Proposed impacts to jurisdictional stream channels resulting from the relocation of Perennial RPW
Stream A total 128 linear feet (Figures 8 and 9, attached). Of these impacts, 95 linear feet will be
temporary and 33 linear feet will be permanent.
The existing 110 linear foot 36 -inch and 30 -inch double reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is proposed to be
extended by 70 linear feet (Figures 8 and 9, attached). This extension is necessary in order to construct
an entrance to the proposed facility utilizing the existing road infrastructure. The proposed entrance is
unavoidable as it is orientated opposite an existing road and traffic light. In order to re -route Stream A to
convey flows to the proposed culvert extension, 33 linear feet will be lost permanently via the culvert
extension. However, 95 linear feet are proposed to be relocated and designed utilizing natural channel
design techniques that will result in an ecological uplift of Stream A. A longitudinal profile and a cross
section of the proposed culvert extension are attached (Figures 9 and 10, respectively).
Wetland Impacts
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands resulting from a portion of Wetland AA total 0.022 acre
(Figure 8, attached). Of these impacts 0.006 acre will be temporary and 0.016 acre will be permanent
Impacts are the result of clearing a portion of the on -site forested wetland to facilitate the construction of
the proposed sanitary sewer (Figure 8, attached) Permanent impacts to on -site wetlands total 0.016 acre
and are the result of a 10 -foot wide permanent maintained easement through Wetland AA in which
forested wetlands will be permanently converted to maintained herbaceous wetlands. The 0.006 acre of
temporary impacts to Wetland AA will be mitigated through reforestation and will be returned to their
pre- construction grades, there will be no above grade fill
Unavoidable impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 3 (next page).

Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Table 3. Summary of impacts to on -site ,jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
On behalf of our client, CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification Application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31 and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 39, (attached).
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to 33 linear feet of perennial
RPW stream channel and 0.022 acre of wetlands. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is not proposed
for this project.
Jurisdktibn
.'
,'
''�Impact
Ju'risdictiotial
Impacty,
,NWV -,
`Temporary /,;
pe4.
rImpacb`Area
= ';USA`CE /EPA
'-
Feature =;° ,.
�, Aapan6s_
Intermittent /i
Type
Nor
Per- irianent
Length,
",,�+(acre's)
x``
_
$erennial
(1 I)
°Cla'ssification
Culvert
Permanent
33
0.003
Stream A
Perennial RPW
Perennial
Extension
39
Relocation
Temporary
95
0.008
M ;Total-Streami =Irnpacts
12'9'4
0 -.0 ac
Directly
Utility
Permanent
n/a
0 016
Wetland AA
N/A
39
Abutting PW
g
Crossing
g
Temporary
n/a
0.006
Total Wetland.Itnpacts
n%a
0.022'acre `
On behalf of our client, CWS is submitting a Pre - Construction Notification Application with
attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31 and pursuant to
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 39, (attached).
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to 33 linear feet of perennial
RPW stream channel and 0.022 acre of wetlands. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is not proposed
for this project.

Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Protect No. 2015 -3530
Please do not hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704 - 408 -1683 or gregg @cws- inc.net should you
have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
AuK /
Kelly hames, WPIT
Project Manager
Attachments: Figure 1.
USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2.
Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 3.
Current USDA -NRCS Union County Soil Survey
Figure 4.
Historic USDA -NRCS Union County Soil Survey
Figure 5.
Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 6.
Town Hall Design I
Figure 7.
Town Hall Design 2
Figure 8.
Town Hall Design 3 — Preferred Design
Figure 9.
Longitudinal Profile of Culvert
Figure 10.
Cross Section of Culvert
Agent Authorization Form
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39
NCDWR Stream Classification Form (SCP1 -SCP2)
USACE Stream Classification Form (SCP1 -SCP2)
Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DP I -DP2)
Agency Correspondence
Representative Photographs
CC: Mr. Joseph Fivas, Town of Indian Trail

'G'- 'x <-a,_ 6�;• /�r� -y ��� / -N.�- -9t��J��s��%� "t v� �✓ tl
R p�ESol] C
.769 �' • ' 1523. I
�. • _-`._ • ` X00 _ 'j -�_ ff ti • "`.� ( r r` N `�� "
or
r �! ` � /��� � . /(jj///.rte • / /// �_� f'.
�,. • r,,, f . , 1 • -s p • •• a F Independence Blvd. /
I;� . � �. _ . y', f• • h6< l - � f1 ' v��' -'� \ `r ' L \I •���.•y�/ / ,., ) � ~� I�• J \�' 66D � • I
+ �• •11VIC�1• 'J'A. `� 687!i / ��J' � \ �� �•(��'�'�� /r�.1 // �N wi i , .��_/
'••�r•�
stall 9 / �Q' 'J •f.�s r • -' A+ . ,' •,4 + 4sy��• ! t,..e�Y',� A S' ,
''< s Matthews - Indian Trail Road �..r' a' - l "1•
ISO 6
TIndlic l; t a•�� ;
ioo
N. Indian Trail Road
- '`� ! :gee • � � � I •• •• �' ��,\ (�-� /'� � ',�s� r'• �r pad
s (�
Jl . i .i •v• �' ri c �'� �,. i Y'OJISE
`'fir ^r �•
J \ ` i FI`` 47 ;+a 1 I _ _ ' µL11 �'�• 65 °✓ r ��( i
' ,7�, 9 �a •�•� -ay y, . Legend
Project Limits
�% ` 8' c •2.000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
$I REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MATTHEWS, NC, DATED 1988.
SCALE. 1" 1000' DATE. 5/19/2015 II USGS Site Location Map FIGURE NO
CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY: KMT � CWS
Indian Trail'I'own hall
APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY: ��x`arverbrnaenrcee Indian Trail, North Carolina
GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET CWS Project No. 2015 -3530 J

All, .
1
Legend
Project Limits
Roads
400 200 0 400 Feet
REFERENCE: AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, DATED 2015.

Perennial RPW Stream A
—609 If on site
016
2
Seasonal RPW Stream B \
—33 If
N
o-.
d�
�6
G�
S
Q`L
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND LAYERS PROVIDED BY UNION COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT,
DATED 2009. STREAM AND WETLAND LAYERS GENERATED BY CWS, INC., DATED MAY 2015,
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED AND CLASSIFIED BY
CWS, INC., ON MAY 7, 2015. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY
THE USACE.
SCALE: 1 : 200' DATE. 5/11/2015
I
CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY: KMT CIA
APPLICANT NO CHECKED BY: "'�""'N°nun5ervxx
GCA WWW.CWS- INC.NET
M n
Wetland AA
—0.61 acre
200 100 0 200 Feet
Approximate Approximate Jurisdictional FIGURE NO
Boundary Map
Indian Trail Town Hall
Indian Trail, North Carolina 5
CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Legend
10/
Project Limits
Wetlands (0.61 ac)
Perennial RPW (609 If)
■ ■ ■ ■ ■� Seasonal RPW (33 11)
Roads
Parcels
•DP Data Point
ASCP Stream Classification Point
4 Photo Location and Direction
200 100 0 200 Feet
Approximate Approximate Jurisdictional FIGURE NO
Boundary Map
Indian Trail Town Hall
Indian Trail, North Carolina 5
CWS Project No. 2015 -3530

'&A1
---------------
Perennial RPW Stream A -------
-------------- ------
WOOLPERT
166 If permanent impacts (culvert extension)
Perennial RPW Stream A
60 If temporary impact (proposed relocation)
1lllift V,
V
ohe
PROPOSED OPEN
SPACE
TOWN HALL
Legend
Existing Perennial RPW
""' .... Proposed Relocation
Permanent Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Permanent Wetland Impact
Existing Culvert
Proposed Culvert Extension
0
4—
Wetland AA
--------- — -- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -
- 0.033 ac permanent impact (clearing)
- 0.017 ac temporary impact (clearing)
- total 0.050 acre impact
J
6efq
------------------------- --------
---------------------- ...
5
MAY 2 8 201
f o0 f\ (5\(ps AN
09
40 Ng R - WATE
RES0uRCC,,q
Q & BUFFE PER ITTiNn
N
Town Hall Design 1
Figure
Indian Trail Town Hall
Union County, NC
6
CWS Project No. 2015-3530
se =~ ^� `
0 30 60 ao
GRWHC SCALE IN FEEr

d0,
m _
Perennial RPW Stream A
- 60 If temporary impact (proposed relocation)
a
1 �
PROPOSED
TOWN HALL
\ 1 1 dead EoSern to
ove (ELI
\' it, �1 1
�p
I �I
I
i
\A/
WOOLPE PT
Perennial RPW Stream A
- 68 If permanent impact (culvert extension)
Legend
Existing Perennial RPW
•••••• — Proposed Relocation
Permanent Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Permanent Wetland Impact
Existing Culvert
Proposed Culvert Extension
r.
I'
_ Wetland AA
I - 0.054 ac permanent impact (clearing)
- -
-- 0 028 temporary ry i p c t (clearing)
-- - -- - - - - V--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I a� total 0.082 impact
MAY 2 8 2015
-------- - - - - -- - -------------------------- - - - - --
oV
_ �" , " _ � . " • " , , + " . " � , � " � '` I � I` X51
" " " " " � +J` ` , ` " " • , " " ` ('i,�!'.'._,.x. " �, R� 719 7
/ - \ " " ` W . •, " . " " • • " . " ` " . " " " " . " r " , . " " Y " " . �'. r 617
`4P,a �oxirnc�te E ocalicn o.F � " ` " � " " • + " " , ` W ` + • ` . ` " � • " .. " . ` " " ` ` . ` r ` � • ` . �` �^ � � r ` -°�" S�ro� ini ��1,
IN.
Town Hall Design 2
Figure
Indian Trail Town Hall
Union County, NC
7
CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
D 70 80 90 QJ/
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

\
`4
Perennial RPW Stream A
- 95 If temporary impact (relocation)
J
a
PROPOSED
TOWN HALL
OPEN
SPACE
P 1
Ia IRL \�
In
MEMMNlI�SiR�ll��
o
1 ' 1
Figure 9
ZZ
1 �1
I
l
i 1
"ILAN
WOOLPERT
Perennial RPW Stream A
- 33 If permanent impact (culvert extension)
Legend
Existing Perennial RPW
......... Proposed Relocation
Permanent Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Permanent Wetland Impact
_ Existing Culvert
Proposed Culvert Extension
Wetland AA
- 0.016 permanent impact (clearing)
- 0.006 temporary impact (clearing)
- total 0.022 impact
In 6'fi �
i
„ I
- - . ✓` - " , ` `. - • ` ` " - . J� • I pot 295
Town Hall Design 3 - Preferred Design
Figure
Indian Trail Town Hall
Union County, NC
8
CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
0 !0 60 90
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

1
Perennial RPW Stream A
- 95 If temporary impact (relocation) 1
I I
I I
1
Culvert Extension
PLAN VIEW
"t 1
1
1
I � 1
1 Perennial RPW Stream A
33 If permanent impact (culvert extension)
6 7.49
4
R,r 67 7413
Otlt
I
I
i
# 69
I
I
Legend
Existing Perennial RPW
......... Proposed Relocation
Permanent Impact
Existing Culvert
Proposed Culvert Extension
690
I
I
Indian Trail Town Hall
Union County, NC
9
665
•
_EY_CROUNO _
�
Y -•
I
30* &W
5
660
67
675
- --
67
670
�-
'.
m8 mA
pp p
O_O
n p p
rR qa
p
Np8 np8
IjI
0,6 os
pOo_O
m8
_
- -- - - - - -- --_�_� `
0+00 0 +50
1 +00 1 +50
2 +00 2 +50 3 +00
3 +50 3 +66
PROFILE
H:1 " =40'I V: 1 " =4'
i
I
IlittI I
I
I
0 10 20 30
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
\A/
WOOLPERT
Longitudinal Profile of Culvert Extension
Figure
Indian Trail Town Hall
Union County, NC
9
CWS Project No. 2015 -3530

' � 1
� 1
Perennial RPW Stream A
Perennial RPW Stream A 1
- 95 If temporary impact (relocation) ` - 33 If permanent impact (culvert extension)
Culvert Extension
I 6 49
Rfrt 61 �4 ?3
one
PLAN VIEW 0 10 20 x
CRApW WAX IN FM
ag N o
0+00 0 +50 0+95
PROFILE
H:7" =40'1 V: 1 " =4'
\A/
_..V V
WOO L P E R T
Legend
Existing Perennial RPW
......... Proposed Relocation
Permanent Impact
Existing Culvert
Proposed Culvert Extension
MAY 2 8 2015 D
Cross Section of Culvert Extension
Figure
10
Indian Trail Town Hall
Union County, NC
CWS Project No. 2015 -3530

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Mr. Joseph Fivas, representing the Town of Indian Trail, hereby certify that t have
authorized Gregg Antemann of 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.
Ap licant;s si natures-=-••- -
D ate
c . s�r
Agent's signature
5/8/2015
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
® Property Information
Address: 0.15 miles northwest of the intersection of Matthews - Indian Trail Road and N.
Indian Trail Road in Indian Trail, NC
County: Union County
Directions: From Highway 74, take N. Indian Trail Road south west for 0.7 miles before
taking a right onto Matthews- Indian Trail Road. Travel for 0.15 miles and
destination is on the left.
Parcel Index Number (PIN): portion of 07105011
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
® Name: Gregg Antemann, PWS
Mailing Address: 550 E. Westinghouse Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone Number: 704 - 408 -1683
Electronic Mail Address I: gregg @cws- inc.net
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
® I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultantz
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
® Name: Mr. Joseph Fivas, Town Manager
Mailing Address: Box 2430 Indian Trail, NC 28079
Telephone Number: 704 - 821 -5401
Electronic Mail Address 3: TownManager @admina.indiantrai1.org
® Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS /Parcel /Tax Record data)
1 If available
2 Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
9

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Property Owner (please print) Date
SEE ATTACHED SIGNED AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
® I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminarX JD for the property identified herein.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property /project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS' and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation. (proceed to F and G
below).
❑ I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property /project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
❑ I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property /project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT /USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
5 Waters of the United States
4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. ALL REQUESTS
® Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
® Size of Property or Project Area 15 acres
® I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
® Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form6.
® Project Coordinates: N35.0813617° Latitude W80.670622° Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
® Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
® Aerial Photography of the project area
® USGS Topographic Map
® Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
►
1
►
1I
1AI
►1
Wetland Data Sheets?
Upland Data Sheets
Landscape Photos, if taken
Tributaries:
® USACE Assessment Forms
® Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
Locations of wetland data points and /or tributary assessment reaches
e See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No 08 -02, dated June 26, 2008
' Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland /community type.
5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Locations of photo stations
Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
❑ Project Coordinates: Latitude Longitude
Maps (no larger than l 1x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as" appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps)
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands: Tributaries:
❑ Wetland Data Sheets8 ❑ USACE Assessment Forms
❑ Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
Locations of wetland data points and /or tributary assessment reaches
Locations of photo stations
Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
❑ Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
a Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland /community type

Jurisdictional Determination Request
I. REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard -
copy submittals include at least one original Plat (to scale) that is no larger than 11 "x17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11 "x17 ", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e -mail to the requestor.
Plats submitted for approval must:
❑ be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
❑ be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
❑ be legible
❑ include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
❑ include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings /metes and
bounds /GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
❑ clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
❑ clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
❑ when wetlands are depicted:
*include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
*identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
❑ when tributaries are depicted:
*include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OHWM) of tributary
*include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using
approximate widths or surveyed OHWM)
ri

Jurisdictional Determination Request
*include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
❑ all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project /property boundaries
❑ include the location of wetland data points and /or tributary assessment reaches
❑ include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently subject to
the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands ", "non jurisdictional
waters "). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to make an official
Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not jurisdictional.
❑ include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that transport
Wous
CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
❑ When the entire actual Jurisdictional Boundary is s depicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ When uplands may be present within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundary:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:
GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
❑ be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
❑ include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property corner, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross - referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
❑ include a brief description of the GPS equipment utilized.

Parcel Report
Parcel Number
07105011
Owner
TOWN OF
INDIAN
TRAIL
Mailing Address
PO BOX 2430
INDIAN TRAIL
NC, 28079
http: / /gis- web.co. union .nc.us /gomaps /Reports /UserDefined /parcelReport...
dO _'' I''ra
7,
q0 0
0 10
ea'
s „ i -., 9 ♦ * , ca`,� � :��2GIenrJltlge Ch.- � ♦�
s�°
3�i �i,r I � .`. �Q7
Account Information
Indian Trail
Land Value $319,300.00
Subdivision
Building Value $249,400.00
Description OPCL900
Total Value $568,700.00
Situs Address 304 MATTHEWS INDIAN TRAIL
Acreage 43.6620
Property Class GOVERMENT /SCHOOL /CHURCH
Sales Information
203.12
Sale Date Sale Amount
Book & Page Grantor
12/29/2010 $1,557,000.00
5468 001 HOUSER FAMILY
ETJ
PARTNERSHIP
01/01/1900 $0.00
01101/1900 $0.00
Stallings
Location Information
CmB,BdB2
Munici al
Site
p
Indian Trail
School
School Assignment Information
Administration
County Zoning Code
CITY
Census Tract Number
203.12
Zoning Administration
Indian Trail
FEMA Panel
4498,5408
ETJ
FEMA Zone
Fire District
Stallings
Soils
CmB,BdB2
Building Information - View Real Property
Site
Total Living Area
0
Type of Building
OTHER
Year Build
0
Improvement Type
District Voting Assignments (Jurisdictions)
Polling Place Indian Trail Library School District 5 Congressional 9
District
Precinct District #14 State House 69 Senate 35
District
I of 1 5/17/2015 1:38 PM

ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 5/26/2015
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
POC- Mr Gregg Antemann, PWS
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd,
Charlotte, NC 28273
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough. Union City: Indian Trail
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format). Lat.35.0813610 N,
Long. 80.6706220 W.
Universal Transverse Mercator.
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to South Fork Crooked Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters. 642 linear feet: 2' -5' width (ft) and /or 0.062 acres.
Cowardin Class R5UB2, R4SB4
Stream Flow. Perennial / Intermittent
Wetlands: 0.61 acres.
Cowardin Class: PF01 B
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): May 7, 2014
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 in
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 less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved 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 authorization 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:
0a

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U S Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas-
F-1 USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name-1:24,000,
Matthews, NC, Dated 1988.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation.
Union County Soil Survey (Current, dated 2013 and Historical, dated 1990).
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is.
of 1929)
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum
® Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date).Site photographs of wetland areas
(May, 2015).
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify)-
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
c- . 7k
5/26/15
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Site
Number
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardian
Class
Estimated
Aquatic Amount of
Resource in
Review Area
Class of Aquatic
Resource
Stream A
N35 081361°
W80 670622°
R5UB2
609 linear feet
non - section 10 non -tidal
Stream B
N35 081361'
W80 670622°
R4SB4
33 linear feet
non - section 10 -- non -tidal
Wetland AA
N35 081361°
W80 670622°
PFO1B
0 61 acre
non - section 10 -- wetland

Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps.
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d. 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
1 e. 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
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
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
Indian Trail Town hall
2b. County
Union
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Indian Trail
2d. Subdivision name-
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed
Town of Indian Trail
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
5468 -001
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable) -
N/A
3d Street address,
P.O. Box 2430
3e. City, state, zip
Indian Trail, North Carolina 28079
3f. Telephone no.
704 - 821 -5401
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
® Agent ❑ Other, specify
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable)
4d. Street address*
4e. City, state, zip*
4f. Telephone no.
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address -
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name
Gregg Antemann, 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 - 408 -1683
5f. Fax no.-
704- 527 -1133
5g. Email address-
gregg @cws- inc.net
Page 2 of 13
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).
portion of 07105011
Latitude. N35.081361* Longitude- -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
W80.6706220
(DD DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size
15 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
UT to South Fork Crooked 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 project area is approximately 15 acres in extent and is comprised of wooded areas and a maintained field (Figure 2,
attached). Typical on -site vegetation includes American elm (Ulmus americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), common greenbnar (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus gwnquefolia), and false nettle (Boehmena cylindrica).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property -
0.61 acre
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property.
33 linear feet of intermittent stream and 609 linear feet of perennial stream for a total of 642 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project-
The purpose of the project is to construct a town hall facility and associated outdoor space for the Town of Indian Trail. This
project is necessary to provide facilities to govern and meet the growth and demand of an area of Union County that is
experiencing significant population growth due to its proximity to Matthews and Charlotte. Impacts to on -site jurisdictional
waters are necessary to construct roadway access and to connect sewer services to existing infrastructure. The project
site was selected due to its location and proximity to the center of the Town of Indian Trail.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used -
A Town Hall and associated facilities will be constructed. The project site was selected due to its location and proximity
to the center of the Town of Indian Trail A track hoe and other typical construction equipment will be used to construct
this project
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
El Yes ®No ❑Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company
Name (if known):
Other
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all 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 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. 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 of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ❑ T
Utility Crossing
Wetland AA
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.016
W2 ❑ P ® T
Utility Crossing
Wetland AA
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
0.006
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ 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
0.022 ac
2h. Comments- A total of 0.022 acre of wetland will be impacted.
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 -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Culvert extension
Perennial RPW
® PER
® Corps
4
33
Stream A
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ® T
Relocation
Perennial RPW
® PER
® Corps
4
95
Stream A
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
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
128 If
3i. Comments A total of 128 linear feet of perennial stream will be impacted.
Page 5 of 13
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 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments -
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no'
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres) -
5k. Method of construction,
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete 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 F1 Other
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
im act
required?
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
83 ❑P ❑T
F1 Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
61. Comments.
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

I D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The Indian Trail Town Hall project has been designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters wherever possible and minimize
the extent of necessary impacts to jurisdictional waters. The following paragraphs outline the avoidance and minimization
efforts undertaken during the planning and design phase of this project.
Avoidance
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. have been avoided wherever possible. The proposed impacts are unavoidable due to the
topography of the site, parcel orientation, and project goals. In areas where impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are
unavoidable, steps have been taken to minimize both the extent and severity of the impacts.
An Alternatives Analysis was performed to determine the least damaging environmental alternative that meets the primary
goal of the project. The goal of the project is to provide a town hall facility and associated outdoor space for the Town of
Indian Trail. A no -build alternative and three potential designs were assessed. Descriptions of each of the alternatives are
given below.
No Budd Alternative
Initially, a no -build alternative was considered. This alternative would result in not providing a town hall facility for the Town of
Indian Trail. With the continued growth in Indian Trail and northwestern Union County, a no -build alternative would result in a
lack of having facilities for elected officials and town business The need for Indian Trail town government facilities is critical
as the area is rapidly expanding. Therefore, the no -build alternative was eliminated from further consideration, since it would
not be reasonable or feasible given the projected growth, and ongoing and future development within the area.
Town Hall Design 1
The project's original design proposes a round -about at the facility entrance (Figure 6, attached). Approximately 320 linear
feet of additional culvert to convey Perennial RPW Stream A beneath the proposed round -about and existing road.
Additionally, in order to tie the proposed sanitary sewer line to the existing sewer line, a utility crossing and manhole is
proposed to impact Wetland AA. Approximately 226 linear feet of Perennial RPW Stream A and 0.050 acre of Wetland AA are
proposed to be impacted by this design. Town Hall Design 1 proposes the most impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
and therefore is eliminated from further consideration. Design alternatives and proposed impacts are summarized in Table 2
(next page).
Town Hall Design 2
The second design iteration of the proposed Indian Trail Town Hall facilities eliminates the round -about at the entrance and
proposes a culvert extension (Figure 7, attached). Additionally, the proposed sanitary sewer line crosses the wetland at a
different location from the first design. Approximately 128 linear feet of Perennial RPW Stream A and 0.082 acre of Wetland
AA is proposed to be impacted by this design Town Hall Design 2 proposes to reduce the stream impacts, but increase the
wetland impacts. Therefore, this design is eliminated from further consideration. Table 2 (below) summarizes the design
alternatives proposed impacts.
Town Hall Design 3 (Preferred Design)
The third design iteration of the proposed Indian Trail Town Hall facilities is the preferred design and impacts the least amount
of jurisdictional waters of the U.S This design eliminates the round -about at the entrance, proposes a culvert extension, and
reduces the proposed building footprint of the proposed Town Hall (Figure 8, attached). Additionally, the proposed sanitary
sewer line crosses the wetland in the best practicable location with the goal of limiting impacts. Approximately 128 linear feet
of Perennial RPW Stream A and 0.022 acre of Wetland AA are proposed to be impacted by this design. Town Hall Design 3
proposes to reduce the permanent stream and wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable. This design is the
preferred design. Table 2 (below) summarizes the design alternatives and proposed impacts
Minimization
Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are limited to 128 linear feet of Perennial RPW stream channel and 0.022 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands, which includes 33 linear feet of permanent stream impacts and 0.016 acre permanent wetland impacts
(Table 3, page 8). The construction corridor will not exceed the 30 -foot maximum corridor width through wetlands as a
condition of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The permanent maintained portion of the right -of -way (R/W) corridor
will not exceed 10 feet in width through wetlands. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances to downstream waters. Anti -seep collars will be installed at the downstream wetland boundary and every 150
feet up the gradient until the sewer trunk exits the wetland. All channel work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with
Water Quality Certification No. 3890. In addition, all permanent maintained rights -of -way through wetlands will be
permanently marked in the field to avoid mowing and maintenance of additional wetland areas.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Proper sediment
and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 ® 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
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.
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
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
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
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
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.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6h. Comments:
Page 9of13
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?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
>24 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan.
Stormwater will be conveyed via a storm sewer system to a stormwater detention pond in the southeastern corner of the
project.
® 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?
Town of Indian Trail, Union
County, NC
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply).
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented 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 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state/local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ 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
❑ 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.
This project will not result in additional future development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The project will be connected to a municipal sewer system.
Page 1 1 of 13
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?
❑ 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 May 15, 2015 to determine the
presence of any federally - listed, candidate endangered, threatened species or critical habitat located within the project
area. In a response dated May 15, 2015, the NCNHP stated, ". there are no records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation /managed areas within the proposed project boundary." A copy of the
correspondence is attached..
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? J
❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries http. / /sharpfin.nmfs. noaa. gov /website /EFH_Mapper /map.aspx
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 your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 17, 2015 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
this submittal, a response from the SHPO has not yet been received. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service
and the Union County Historic Preservation Commission database and found no areas or properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance within the project limits.
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 you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No. 3710449800J and 3710540800J
i
Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
5 -26 -2015
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 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

NC DWO Srre2m Identification Form Version 4.11
Cate: p S �0 �' I S
Pro)ectlSite: ;
Latitude:
Evaluator: 6CA
County: UVLI pvt e4
Longitude: tij80,110"I p ZZ°
Total Points:
Stream is at'leas4 intermittent
Stream Determination (circle e)
Other
if t ,19 or erenn�al i Z 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent ta nn
e.g. Quad Name:
s au
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str
10, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
fl
(5/
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
C21
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
3
3
6. Depostional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1.5
1
2
3
9. Grade control
❑
0.5
0
1.5
10. Natural valley
1 0
05
Liz
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
I No 96W
Yes = 3
"artiriaal ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = Q. S )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
t97>
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
3
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water tables
No = 0
Yes
3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 12.I,S )
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
BF
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
❑
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
.7VOBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual.
Notes: 0 rr -
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: or/pI :0IF
ProjecVSite: i" I tz`
Latituda: 'N 3f Og►3�1'
Evaluator: b L
County: Vklk'a^ (.OGU1
Longitude: W@�, & j0(,Z_t
Tota6 Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other S'ti'n''''t �
Straam is at least intermittent
if 2 t9 or ammmal if 2 30`
Ephemeral rmi a Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: C oZ
St.f
A. Geotno hold (Subtotal =__2%5
Absent
Week
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel' along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
S. Activelrelict fioodplain
0
1
2
15
6. Depositional bars or benches
n
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
V
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
. artificial Ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
'2
3 I
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
M
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Y =
C. Biolow (Subtotal = (a'; ) _
18. Flbrcus roots In streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance}
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
02
1
15
24. Amprubions
n
n
1
1.5
25. Algae
G.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch;

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1— Perennial RPW Stream A
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Joseph Fivas, Town of Indian Trail 2. Evaluator's name. Gregg Antemann, PWS
3. Date of evaluation- 05 -07 -2015
4. Time of evaluation: 3:15 PM
5. Name of stream Perennial RPW Stream A 6. River basin Yadkin (HUC# 03040105)
7. Approximate drainage area- 95 acres 8. Stream order 1st
9. Length of reach evaluated- 100 if 10. County Union
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any) n/a
Latitude (ex 34 872312): N35.081361 ° Longitude (ex —77 556611). W80.6706220
Method location determined (circle) GP Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location).
Located in the eastern portion of the property
14. Proposed channel work (if any): stream relocation
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and humid
16. Site conditions at time of visit. overcast, 82°
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
_Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluate
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
Dn pomt9 YES (E) If yes, estimate the water surface area-
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 0
80 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
20 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width 2 -5' 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank) 2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2% Gentle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep ( >10%
25. Channel sinuosity- CStraight casional 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): 41 Comm
Evaluator's Signature Z7 3- Date 05/07/2015
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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1 — Perennial RPW Stream A
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION'POINTRANGE,',','r
'
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal, Piedmont.- Mountain,
;
1
Presence,of flow/ persistent, pools, in strearrir'
' D� `5 -
0,� 4 .
,� `
A - 5
3
no & - or, saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints)
2,
Evidence of;past human, alteration '
0 6
—`
0-5 `
0-5
0
extensive alteration, =,O; no- alteration!= max points)
'31-
, .Riparian, zone _�
0—,,6
OL= 4-
; 0
-
(no buffer`= 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
-4`_
Evidence of,nutrient or.chemical,discliarges', }
=maxi
x.0,='5-
'
-0—,,4
l
(extensivd!dischar es^= 0,•'`noidischar es omts )'
5
'Groundwater'discharge
0-3
0-4'-
0-4
1
(no discharge--6, springs, see s „yetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0,- 4
0 — 4 ,°
0 — 2
3
,
(no flood lain =�0; extensive flood lain ° max oints
- =Entrenchment / flood plain access
x.
�,
2
�+
(dee l entrenched = 0; frequent `flooding = Finax oints),
-
=
k 8
,� ,Presence of adjacent wetlands.
0 =
0 —4 ' '
"0 `— 2 -
1
(no wetlands,= 0; large adjacent wetlands = Max- o_ ints
_6°
9, ”
Channel sinuosity'
0— 5
0 4.
i — ,;''
0 — 3 . '
0
(extensive.channelization = 0; natural meander = max, oints)
10, ,
_ Sediment input �'` _
0, ``5
0,= 4' �
�5
0�`- 4,
3
extensive de osition=:0;,little or`no, sediment =►pax oints
R
11
Size'dtdiversity of channel; substrate;"
NA *
0-4
0 5 `
3
,fine, homog enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = �maz oints
-
Evidence of channeLincision or widening ; ; . `
4
2
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max, o`ints)
0-5
0 — -
0-5
13-
. Presence of major bank faikires r
- 0.— 5°
�. - h ,
:0 — 5
0'_ 5:
4
, severe erosion= 0; no.erosiom,- stable banks= max points),_
J
}
Root depth and,density on' banks - r
4
' no visible roots = 0;,dense roots%throu hout = max ointa
-
Impact,by agriculture, livestock, or.timber ,production
1
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) _
0 — 5
0 — 4
0 — 5
16`
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
_
0 =3
Or 5
0 -4
2
,no riffles /ii les or ools = 0;, well- develo ed = maxi" oints
17',
w� -
P-Rabitittoinplezity „'
� ”
0' —`6.'
"
0 -6z�'
�
0 —�6
3
•tittle or no habitat ='0; .fre went, varied habitats ° max''` oints
18
Canopy coverage over,streambed:
_ (no shading ve etation. _ 0; continuous cano = max, oin_ts
0, -5
0 -5, ;
-_`0 -5
0
�
'Substrate embeddedness -� ",
2
19
(deeply embedded— 0;,loose structure --max-)l
NA*
0 -4 ,,�
0' -4,'
20
Preseince:

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET_ ;
f.w
SCP2 - Seasonal RPW Stream B
Provide the following information for the stream reacl
1. Applicant's name Joseph Fivas, Town of Indian Trail
3. Date of evaluation- 05 -07 -2015
5. Name of stream. Seasonal RPW Stream B
7. Approximate drainage area 47 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated- 50 If
11. Site coordinates (if known). prefer in decimal degrees
i under assessment:
2. Evaluator's name: Gregg Antemann, PWS
4. Time of evaluation. 2 PM
6. River basin. Yadkin (HUC# 03040105)
8. Stream order 1 st
10. County. Union
12. Subdivision name (if any)- n/a
Latitude (ex 34 872312): N35 081361 ° Longitude (ex -77 556611). W80 6706220
Method location determined (circle) GP Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location).
Located in the southwestern portion of the property
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n/a
15. Recent weather conditions- hot and humid
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known- Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 0
21. Estimated watershed land use- % Residential 80 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
20 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 34' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank)- 1 -2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Gentle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity. Straight 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): 52 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature1 Date 05/07/2015
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 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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP2 — Seasonal RPW Stream B
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION_POINT RANGP'�
SCORE °
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
=
Presence of flow / persistent,pools in= stream,'_ "
2
(no, flow or saturation = 0; strong flow =,max oirits) _
2
Evidence -of past human alteration , ° _
0— 6
t 0•— 5
0-5
2
_
extensive alteration = 0; no, alteration = max points)
Riparian,zone r
0 — 6
"0— 4
0-5
3
(no buffer, = 0; °conti uous, wide buffer' =,max; oirits ),
.
,.
Evidence ofmutrient or chemical discharges '
0� 5 v
; ° =a� 0'
4' '� ''
4
4
extensive.dischar es = 0; no dischar �es = max p oints
—v4
�0 -
z r�
5.,
,Groundwater, discharge ' ;f
�
�0 -3,
-�. ,
0 ='4'
'"
0 -4.
2
�,
no,dischar a° =:0 ;,s ci"is,�,see s, wetlands, etc: = `inax points),,,,
'
`
_
-6
Presence"of,adjacent floodplain
0— 4
4
0�_ 2
4
6
F
(no lain = 0; extensive flood lain = maxl oirits) `
°0=
-'
a
f
Entrenchment / floodplaim access
0= 5
0-4
0-2
4
(dee ly entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max, oints
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
=
40-4
0'— 2' :
3
(no,wetlands ='rO; Jar j6 adjacent wetlands = max oirits )
9
Channel sinuosity = ;
0-5
, �'�0-4'.- "
0 —3 °: '
1
(extensive channeliz_ation = 0; natural meander = max, Points
xc
,
1-0
Sediment input
`
3
_ x extenswe d`e osition ='.0; °little or no sediment,= inaX oirits ,
°
11
Size. &.diveisity of channel'bed.substrate °;
NA *
i
=0 = 4 '
0'— 5: `
l
fine, homo enous, °e0;'lar e,,diverse sizes =,maX points
`
12
Ediderice of;channel,incision,or widening'-
0 —5
01 —,5
3
(dee 1, ,incised = �O;'stable bed:& banks = max points)
!
Presence of major bank failures
5
,H„
13
severe erosion = 0; no _erosion, "stable banks =. max-points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-3
14
Root,depth and density on, banks
0 = 3
'.;FO — 4
0, — 5,
3
'
no visible roots= 0; Odense roots throu bout = maX� oirits
lnipact'by agriculture , production'
y
°- `�` i,
; a�
4
°livestock,,or,timber
(substantialt im act =0; -no,evidence:= max poi rits
'
r 16
Presence_of ciffie -pool ripple -pool compleies
0,— 3
;=0-=�5
0-6
0
L
no riffles /ri ' les or `ool`s' =,0; well`= d'evelo ed = ma)( points
-.,
'17
17
complexity -
-
0 —'6
-�0 -6
0 -6,=
1
little or no 1habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oirits
18
Canopy ',coverage over streambed
0-5
OY— 5,
0-5
5
no shading vegetation— 0; continuous canopy max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0 —,4 y
,,0 -4
0
(deeply embedded'= 0; loose structure= max):"
20°
Presence of stream invertebrates ,(see page *4)-- '
�
0� —'4
0`— 5,-
0�— Sr
1
.
(no:evidence = 0; common;_numerous es,= max' oints
° �• ° _
, . ;,
lP,re'sence4 amphibians °, .�ex'. '°
0-4
4
0 = f
0° "4'
0
,'(rio,evidence, =,0;'co-mmon; numerous es =, max' o'mis) .
0,
X22- '
Presence ;of fish,
0— 4
0= 4
i.
0.` 4
0
;;
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types =max ' oirits)
[2i
�Evidence�of wildlife use,
0 —'6
0 - 5
0' — 5
1
no evidence = 0; zbundant evidence = max-points)-
Total Points Possible
100
100
100'
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on'first page),
52
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
PrajecU5ite:,__1 ^aW CttylCounty. Sampling Date- DSi D
Applicant/Cwner, Jwseoll JAS . Tdw,, 111",qqAr Mmwl eLlrdii,4 T Mate IJ(. Sampling Point, APi - LcrR19
Investigator(s): .7h S Section. Tinvnship, Range: VtCitGtIll Ti�l.t
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): co wC4 slope (gs) 0 -201,
Subregion iLRR or MLRAI: r MOO Lat: N_3S:0913(ata Long, *fib2l� Datum: D 83
,Sail Map Unit Name; �d ft� r S 'i�. �^'� NWI Uassification.
Are climatic Y hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of 4ear? Yes �(_ 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? - needed, explain any answers in Rmarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydiophytic Vegetation Present? Yes k No
Hydric Sal Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
�rw is (cprexw(A*W- k , ,u�;s�t�vh'a, -,�,,� vp,,j" alre ,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two feouired)
'Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that aPply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (814)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
,Z( High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Salutation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhlzospheres on Living Roots (0) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (81) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposes (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6) J Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) i
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D11
Iron Deposits (135)
^_
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
! Shallow Aqultard (03)
.y Water- Stalned Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC•Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches) �f
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth Cinches)-
Saturation Resent? Yes No
Depth (inches) 19
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �% No
(includes ca Illar frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge. monitoring welt, aerial phctos previous Inspections), if available:
Remarks:
` L
N�t C
U✓tfit �0 �Q L/
((��j`�i�.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolu*e Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size. ) over Species? Status
2. i n 3o ifs
3, _ti_._
4.
5.
G.
7
11 = Total Cover
50% of total cover .S T C 20% of total cover - le-3_
(Plot size: I
�rib_ �Fn tnw�
fA
5 UIA ff%!F ► G 1 5 1V�
G.
7,
8
9.
(�= Total Cove
50% of total cover: _ 20% of total cover
8
9
10
11
i'
i
a /I
= Total Cnver
50% of total cover, H V 20% of total cover No
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size; }
1.
2
3
4.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 2040 of total cover:
rs here or on a separate sheet,)
Sampling Point: 1 *- - — VVOAII
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata (B)
Fercent of Dominant Species
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC (AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 -
FAC species
x 3 -
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 -
Column Totals.
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index - BIA -
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophyac Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
tc present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in, (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast heght (DBH), regardless of
hei5ht.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plarts, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 It It
M) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - moody) plants, regardless
of size, and wocdy plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 it in
Hydrophytie
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
100% oic- -tkz dvm e af" ' -<pe04f S u d`- rt--,/7 1✓ 01-
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

j, .
SOIL
to
or can
Sampling Point: W.1 `
Depth Matrix Rggpx Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color malst i Tvpge� c` Texture Remarks
SrYS� 6ty trf Id ,( ctw
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion. RM- Reduced Matrix, MS =tasked Sand Grains. `Location, PL -Pare Lining, IA-Matrix,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils'!
_ Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Hisiic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (SS) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_, Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_.__ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleycd Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Fioodplain Soils (1`19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matriy (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface {TF12)
— Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
® Other (Explain in Remarks)
.._.. Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyod Matrix (SO
_ Umbric Surface (1`13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 146)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type,
Depth (inches):
US Army Corps of Engineers
4 hqc 6(, lolls 0r� 1`WA%4—,
Hydric Soil Present? YesX No
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

1
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and P- iedmont Region
ProjecUSite, T 0L4A- {�'w(( city1county: f•!d`r bn 1.� Sampling Data
Applicant/Owner: JOSe 7 F7't�Ar S , /pkM l Gr tyR`GeT ��Q�,wr pf �li7uigh % %a/�� State: �;� Sampling Point, t'Crvy�
Invesugater(s): ✓!q ' S Section. Township, Range: 1 *4k1D y-eti ( IA
Landform thillslope, ten ace. etc.). U Local relief (concave, convex, none)- 0,0' UglX Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): ��IA- Lai: N39• 66613&/' Long: W20.10-4- ptoL7i� Datum:_ A D Kra
Soil Map Unit Name: Gad CAnAvi n e-&L S - t 1 o&r" 9 S1WS r1 M QNWI dassffication:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes -,;&,_ No (If no, explain In Remarks)
Are Vegetation _'Soil_ . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are `Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _,k_ No
Are Vegetation . Soil . 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
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No_
Remarks.
[ AirA r l li t I'S ce f f''8�,, fA f � u N D)17 t� 1'I'(1 LhbKw(
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators fmrnimum of two required)
Primary indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (BS)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (814)
r Sparsely Vegetatec Concave Surface (88)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ _Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres an Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (Bt 6)
_ Water Marks (61)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposiu; (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible at Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat a Crust (84)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (89)
r Micretopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observadons:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches)-
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches): It
Saturation Present? Yes
No JT Depth (inches)
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No_,X
Includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (Stream gauge, monitonng well ,aerial photos, previous inspections). if available_
Remarks:
No m icooW
6�-VUOIAlion hyM(p� y diry
P(e
US Army Cnrps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

I `
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Remarks, (include photo numbers here or on aPseparate sheet.) /_ -
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet: '
Tree Stratu (Plot size: ) %' Cover Status
1, Grit am&ir !OWI'4 s Fl "( U%
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
_S-0 x�-,
ACCr I'W1Oi-ac L7 � 12
3.
�,Wn�����)1
�G �a`B is NO flow o
Total Number of Dominant
Spades Across All Strata: Lp (B)
0 A/(i J1t1- A,t� "A •
5
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC, M (NB)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total Cover
Total 96 Cover of: Multiply by:
500/6 of total cover: 20% of total cover-
species X1 a
Sanlinohrub
Stratum (Plot size: 1
FACW species x 2 a
1
�11!ML4 S awnGrr CewtjL 9{CW
FAC species x 3 =
2,
_
IVNSS�r si�`(/>ac,�`7CGt _ ��(� yf� ��4�7
FACU species x 4 a
1
r may`—
UP species x 5 =
q,
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B!A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 • Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is sLW
�d = Total Cover
50:6 of total cover 20 20% or total cover:
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plat size: }
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet}
1 .
-. �h�(rnvt /Drc>!f l�ur7�_ FitC
�� G
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.
41C4 50 �� fn u
'
3.
A t°.✓i f7+Pti SLt S �jrNhyYta: �l � (�Q �
Indicators of soil and hydrology must
-� —h� LLt=
to present. unless disturbed or problematic.
less or problematic.
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines. 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7•
height.
8.
9•
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in, DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11.
Herb - All herbaceous (non•vmody) plants, regardless
�yo a Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall.
50° %of total cover: 20% of total cover: 2
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Woody vine - NI tvaady vines greater than 3,28 it In
t
height
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
= Total Cover
Vegetation
Present? Yes _Z_ No
5D% of total cover _ 20`K of total cover
Remarks, (include photo numbers here or on aPseparate sheet.) /_ -
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

..
SOIL Sampling Point;
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) _ g4, T�� _ = Remarks
D -`/ t0 y& 3 ldo
Sr
� �Di
3'I Z 2. b 100
&2A Iff±:41
'Type: C- Concentration. D =De lebon, RM=
Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
*Location• PL =Pare Lining, M =Matrix.
Hydrie Soil Indicators.
Indicators for Problematic Hydrie Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (57)
_ 2 cm Muck (A1o) (MLRA 147)
_ Hisuc Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147. 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
_ Black Histle (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(PALRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ -Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_,_, Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (Fi)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A72)
_ Redox Depress,ons (F8)
_ Sandy Mlucky Mineral (S1) (LRR K
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators 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.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type.
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1 Perf 6d`( V10 i nOl1� S o F !� ycf n'c sb (1s
plebe '-
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
M

I it n
AE -wFAA
INCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat Mc Cory g,yan Gossip Donald R, van del Vaart
Governor Dim=r Secretary
May 15, 2015
Kelly Thames
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
kelly @cws -inc net
RE Town Hall NWP39, 2015 -3530
Dear Kelly Thames
NCNHDE -285
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there
are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation /managed
areas within the proposed project boundary, or within a one -mile radius of the project boundary
Please note that the results of this query should not be substituted for site - specific surveys where suitable
habitat exists Although there may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project
boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence, the area may not have been surveyed In the event
that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records
Please also note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for
regulatory decisions Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior
written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these
publications Maps of NCNHP data may also not be redistributed without permission
Thank you for your inquiry If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need
additional assistance, please contact Allison Schwarz Weakley at allison weakleyn ncdenr go v or
919 707 8629
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 2

r
0)
M
Z
cc
2
c
3
00
N
i
W
2
Z
U
Z
E a
o z'�
ZY
� O
m _
N r
N � p
o z
c y"
c
�g
0—M
r
0
o a
m �
L m
N
a m'
tn
-DO
w
I
a)
rn
m
a

• S AW
Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Photograph A. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing downstream
Photograph B. View of Seasonal RPW Stream B, facing downstream.

4 &
Indian Trail Town Hall May 26, 2015
Nationwide Permit No. 39 and Request for Verification CWS Project No. 2015 -3530
Photograph C. View of Wetland AA, facing southeast.
Photograph D. View of Wetland BB, facing west.