20170399 Ver 1_401 Application_20170417

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 2016 - 2206 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]:
Scott's Run
2. Work Type: Private ❑�
Institutional
❑
Government ❑
Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
The purpose of this project is to develop the property into a single-family residential development in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
True Homes, LLC.; POC: Mr. Jeffrey M. Reasner
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: SAW -2016-02206
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form B1b]:
Northwest of the Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road and Mt. Holly Road intersection in Charlotte, NC
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.3114740, -80.9832740
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 031 15230
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Catawba River
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Santee (HUC 03050101)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑✓
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit # 29
❑ Regional General Permit #
❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑� Section 10 & 404
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
0 Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
April 4, 2017
Mr. David Shaeffer
Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Satellite Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury St., 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890
SAW -2016-02206
Scott's Run
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2014-3511
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins,
The Scotts Run site (Mecklenburg County Tax Parcel No. 03115230) is approximately 35.9 acres
in extent and is located northwest of the Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road and Mt. Holly Road
intersection in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, attached). The purpose of this project
is to develop the property into a single-family residential subdivision. True Homes, LLC has
contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services
for this project. An executed Agent Authorization Form is attached.
Applicant Name: True Homes, LLC.; POC: Mr. Jeffrey M. Reasner
Mailing Address: 2649 Brekonridge Centre Drive, Monroe, NC 28110
Street Address of Project: northwest of the Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road and Mt. Holly Road
intersection in Charlotte, North Carolina
Waterway: UT to Catawba River
Basin: Catawba (HUC' 03050101)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Tax Parcel No(s): 03115230
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.3114740, -80.9832741
USGS Quadrangle Name: Mount Holly, NC (1993) and Mountain Island Lake, NC (1996)
' "HUC" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
Current Land Use
The site consists of undeveloped upland wooded areas. Typical overstory vegetation includes
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
white oak (Quercus alba), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia). Common understory species found on site include eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ground
cedar (Diphasiastrum digitatum), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Jurisdictional Determination
On June 21 and 23, 2016, CWS's scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, Wetland Professional in Training
(WPIT), Kaitlin McCulloch, Staff Scientist Il, and Michelle LaForge, Staff Scientist II, delineated
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project area (Figure 4, attached). A request for a
preliminary jurisdictional determination was submitted to the USACE on November 3, 2016.
On -Site jurisdictional features were field -verified by Mr. David Shaeffer of the USACE on
November 10, 2016 (SAW -2016-02206).
Table 1. Summary of On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands
Jurisdictional Stream
Jurisdiction
Approximate
Linear Feet (If)
Approximate
Acreage (ac.)
USACE/EPA Rapanos
Classification'
Stream A
RPW
749
0.12
Stream B
RPW
2,269
0.30
Stream C
Seasonal RPW
243
0.03
Stream Total:
3,261 If
0.45 ac.
Jurisdictional Wetland
Jurisdiction
Approximate
Linear Feet (If)
Approximate
Acreage (ac.)
USACE/EPA Rapanos
Classification
Wetland AA
Directly abutting to RPW
N/A
0.200
Wetland BB
Directly abutting to RPW
N/A
0.030
Wetland CC
Directly abutting to RPW
N/A
0.004
Wetland Total:
N/A
0.234 ac.
Stream and Wetland Total:
3,261 If
0.684 ac.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SH PO) on March
7, 2017 to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance that would be affected by the project. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS
2 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 of jurisdictional 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 floodplains 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.
Page 2 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
service,3 the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission online database,4 and the
Mecklenburg County Polaris 3G historical mapping program' and found no historical structures,
buildings, sites, or districts within the project limits. As a date of submittal, no response has been
received from the SHPO.
Protected Species
CWS scientists performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) Data Explorers on March 6, 2017 to determine the presence of any federally -listed,
candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat located within the project area.
Based on the NCNHP review, there are no records of federally -protected species within the
project limits. Within a mile of the project area there are two recorded populations of Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). A copy of the NCNHP report is attached.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS), Raleigh Field Office, North Carolina
Distribution Records of Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Concern list for Mecklenburg
County' was reviewed. The USFWS database lists the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), smooth purple coneflower (Echinacea laevigata),
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as
potentially occurring in Mecklenburg County. Additionally, the project area is within Northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) range.'
On March 22, 2017 CWS scientists conducted a pedestrian survey of the project area for
federally -protected species. Transects were completed within identified areas of supportive
habitat, as applicable, for potentially occurring federally -protected species.
Based on the literature search and the results of the on-site assessment for federally -protected
endangered and threatened species, it has been determined that marginal habitat was observed
for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). However, any incidental take on NLEB that may result
from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. As no individuals of Schweinitz's
sunflower or Carolina heelsplitter were observed within the project limits, this project will have no
effect on these species. As no habitat was observed for the Michaux's sumac, smooth purple
coneflower, or bald eagle, this project will have no effect on these species.
A letter requesting concurrence was sent to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services
(USFWS) on March 30, 2017. As of the submittal date, no response has been received from the
USFWS.
s North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed March 7, 2017.
4 Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, http://www.cmhpf.org/homehistoricproperties.htm. Accessed March 7,
2017.
5 Mecklenburg County Polaris3G. http://polaris3g.mecklenburgcountync.gov/#mat=220833&pid=05509109
6 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. Accessed March 6, 2017.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office. Accessed March 16, 2017. Endangered and Threatened Species
and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_Counties.html.
8 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
Page 3 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 21 of 35.9 acres of the property into a
single-family residential development. This project will provide residential housing within
Charlotte, North Carolina to meet the growth and demand of an area of Mecklenburg County that
is experiencing significant population growth due to its proximity to downtown Charlotte, North
Carolina. This property is in a prime location based on its proximity to Interstate 485.
This project is not a phased project, but it will have an additional impact to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. in the foreseeable future. This future impact consists of a permanent road crossing at the
location of the currently proposed temporary road crossing (Temporary Road Crossing "B" in this
permit application). The timing on the permanent road crossing is market driven and would occur
at the best in 2020 or later. The impacts associated with the future permanent crossing will be
permitted and impact totals will be evaluated cumulatively. Mitigation requirements will be met if
necessary. Adjoining subdivisions are all owned by individuals and/or companies not associated
with this subdivision.
Avoidance and Minimization
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. Construction activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permits 29 and Water Quality Certificate No.
3890. All work will be constructed in the dry.
Project related permanent impacts to jurisdictional tributaries are limited to 166 linear feet of
intermittent stream channel and 0.004 acres of wetlands (W 1). Permanent stream impacts
consist of a culvert installation for a road crossing (S1) and an associated rip rap apron (S2),
which will be keyed below existing channel grade. The net permanent loss of jurisdictional waters
for the project totals 134 linear feet and does not include the rip rap apron. Temporary impacts to
jurisdictional tributaries are limited to 72 linear feet of perennial stream channel (S3) for a
temporary road crossing (Figures 7-13, attached).
In order to avoid and minimize adverse effects to jurisdictional waters to the maximum extent
practicable, four different alternatives were considered. These alternatives include 1) No Build
Alternative, 2) Original Design, 3) Alternative Design, and 4) Proposed Design. These
alternatives are described below and summarized in Table 2, next page.
1. No Build Alternative
In an attempt to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters while meeting the goals of the project, a
"No Build" alternative was considered. The property is being purchased for the purpose of
providing residential housing to meet the growth and demand of an area in Mecklenburg County
experiencing significant population growth. A "No Build" option would not meet the project goals
of providing necessary housing to meet the current demand. Therefore, the No Build Alternative
was eliminated from further consideration.
Page 4 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
2. Original Design - Potential IP
The Original Design would have proposed approximately 1,150 linear feet of permanent impacts
to jurisdictional stream channels (Figure 5, attached [Table 2, next page]) as a result of piping for
road crossings and grading for housing lots. The Original Design would have exceed the 300
linear foot threshold for Nationwide Permit No. 29 and would not meet any requirements for
avoidance and minimization. Therefore, the Original Design would have resulted in an Individual
Permit (IP) application. However, alternative designs were developed resulting in less impacts to
jurisdictional stream channels and the Original Design was rejected.
3. Alternative Design - NC SAM Scores
The Alternative Design (Figure 6, attached) exhibits two road crossings to establish future
connectivity within the subdivision. This layout includes crossings of RPW Stream A and RPW
Stream B, but disconnects the development in order to avoid a third crossing for Seasonal RPW
Stream C. This would result in approximately 299 linear feet of permanent loss of RPW stream
channel.
On January 17, 2016, Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) scientists Kelly Thames,
Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) and Aliisa Harjuniemi, Wetland Professional in Training
(WPIT) reviewed the three streams located within the Scott's Run site (Figure 4, attached). The
North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NC SAM) was utilized to rate the quality and
function of each stream in the approximate location of potential crossing locations.
RPW Stream A scored HIGH on the NC SAM form at the location of the potential crossing
(Figure 6, attached, NC SAM 1; Appendix E). RPW Stream B scored LOW on the NC SAM
form at the location of the potential crossing (Figure 6, attached, NC SAM 2, Attachment E).
Seasonal RPW Stream C scored MEDIUM on the NC SAM form at the location of the potential
crossing (Figure 7, attached, NC SAM 3; Appendix E).
Crossing #1 of Stream A occurs in an area of extreme topographic relief where elevations range
from 584 to 632 feet above sea level within 150 feet measured perpendicularly from the stream
top of bank up (Figure 6, attached). Due to the height difference between both sides of the
crossing, a wider than normal impact association with the crossing would be required.
Additionally, the stream is stable and the buffer is intact with mature hardwoods. The stream has
an abundance of macroinvertebrate life, including caddisflies, salamanders, and fish. Stream A
scored HIGH as assessed with NC SAM at the proposed crossing location (Figure 6, attached).
Crossing #2 of Stream B is proposed to occur within a powerline right-of-way where sections of
the stream and buffer are highly modified (Figures 6 and 7, attached). Moreover, the crossing is
proposed to occur in an area where topography is less steep with elevations ranging 590 to 620
feet above sea level within 150 feet measured perpendicularly from the stream top of bank.
Stream B scored LOW as assessed with NC SAM at the proposed crossing location due to the
degraded reach within the maintained powerline right-of-way (Figure 6, attached).
Stream C has been straightened at some point in the past as evidenced by weak sinuosity.
Additionally, the banks are eroding and the buffer is encroached by invasive species such as
autumn olive (Elaeaganus umbellate). The proposed crossing is located at an previously
disturbed area that was piped in the past. This pipe has since failed and created a wetland area
Page 5 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
at this location (Photograph F; Figure 4, attached). Stream C scored a MEDIUM as assessed
with NC SAM at the proposed crossing location (Figure 7, attached).
Given that Stream A has the highest stream quality and function of on-site streams at proposed
crossing locations, impacts to Stream A have been avoided in the Proposed Design Plan (Figure
7, attached). The Proposed Design Plan protects mature hardwood forest in the southwestern
corner of the property. A crossing of Stream A would damage the quality of the stream and the
buffer. The topography associated with Stream A would be difficult to traverse with a culvert and
road with minimal impacts. Additionally, since "practicable" alternatives exist, the avoidance and
minimization conditions under the Clean Water Act permitting would not be met. Therefore, the
proposed design plan (Figure 7, attached) represents the least damaging practicable alternative
for the development of this subdivision.
Table 2. Summary of Original, Alternative, and Proposed Designs and Associated Impacts
4. Proposed Design Plan
The Proposed Design Plan has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. wherever practicable. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S consist of one
permanent road crossing and one temporary road crossing. The proposed permanent road
crossing of Seasonal RPW Stream C is unavoidable in order to provide ingress and egress for the
subdivision. Seasonal RPW Stream C bisects the property in western and eastern halves.
Therefore, alternative options for road access throughout the proposed subdivision, while avoiding
impacts to jurisdictional streams, are nonexistent.
The proposed crossings are located at the locations where the existing stream quality and
functions are lowest within the project limits as Assessed with NC SAM Forms (Attachment E).
The proposed Road Crossing "A" is located at the location of failed pipe and the proposed
temporary Road Crossing "B" is proposed to occur within a powerline right-of-way where sections
of the stream and buffer are highly modified (Figure 7, attached).
The proposed road crossings will result in approximately 166 linear feet of impacts to Seasonal
RPW Stream C and 0.004 acre impact to Wetland CC. However, total loss of waters associated
with the proposed road crossings are limited to 134 linear feet of stream channel and 0.004 acres
of wetlands. The road crossing has been strategically placed at the straight section of the stream
and at the footprint of a wetland to avoid additional impacts. Headwalls at the inlet and outlet of
the culvert will be utilized in order to minimize channel impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
The headwalls and rip rap apron downstream of the culvert, will prevent erosional forces from
undermining the culvert outlet, as well as maintain the integrity of the road crossing (Figures 8 and
9, attached). The rip rap will be keyed in below the existing grade of the channel and is therefore
not considered a loss of waters of the U.S. The proposed culverts will be buried one -foot below
Page 6 of 11
Figure
Permanent
Permanent
Temporary
Temporary
Proposed Design Plans
No
Stream Impacts
Wetland
Stream
Wetland
(If)
Impacts (ac.)
Impacts (If)
Impacts (ac.
Original Design
5
- 1,150 If
0 ac.
0 If
0 ac.
Alternative Design
6
- 299 If
0 ac.
0 If
0 ac.
Proposed Design Plan
7
166
0.004 ac.
72 If
0.004 ac.
4. Proposed Design Plan
The Proposed Design Plan has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. wherever practicable. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S consist of one
permanent road crossing and one temporary road crossing. The proposed permanent road
crossing of Seasonal RPW Stream C is unavoidable in order to provide ingress and egress for the
subdivision. Seasonal RPW Stream C bisects the property in western and eastern halves.
Therefore, alternative options for road access throughout the proposed subdivision, while avoiding
impacts to jurisdictional streams, are nonexistent.
The proposed crossings are located at the locations where the existing stream quality and
functions are lowest within the project limits as Assessed with NC SAM Forms (Attachment E).
The proposed Road Crossing "A" is located at the location of failed pipe and the proposed
temporary Road Crossing "B" is proposed to occur within a powerline right-of-way where sections
of the stream and buffer are highly modified (Figure 7, attached).
The proposed road crossings will result in approximately 166 linear feet of impacts to Seasonal
RPW Stream C and 0.004 acre impact to Wetland CC. However, total loss of waters associated
with the proposed road crossings are limited to 134 linear feet of stream channel and 0.004 acres
of wetlands. The road crossing has been strategically placed at the straight section of the stream
and at the footprint of a wetland to avoid additional impacts. Headwalls at the inlet and outlet of
the culvert will be utilized in order to minimize channel impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
The headwalls and rip rap apron downstream of the culvert, will prevent erosional forces from
undermining the culvert outlet, as well as maintain the integrity of the road crossing (Figures 8 and
9, attached). The rip rap will be keyed in below the existing grade of the channel and is therefore
not considered a loss of waters of the U.S. The proposed culverts will be buried one -foot below
Page 6 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
the stream channel. This design allows for the passage of aquatic life and low flows. Moreover,
bankfull channel dimensions will be maintained (Figure 10, attached).
Temporary stream crossing over RPW Stream B is necessary to transport soil from the site across
the stream to the north side during the early construction phases. A temporary HDPE will be
utilized in early construction phases. This will result in a total of 72 linear feet of temporary impacts
to RPW Stream B. All materials will be removed after construction and the stream will be
restored to preconstruction conditions. A planting plan will be utilized to revegetate the 100 -foot
riparian buffer (50 -foot buffer along both banks) of the disturbed stream channel.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts wherever possible. We
believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while
avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent practicable.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 29, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters
associated with this project are limited to a total of 0.004 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 166 If
of jurisdictional stream channel. The proposed culvert installation will result in 134 -linear foot loss
of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The proposed rip rap apron downstream of the culvert will
result in an additional 32 -linear foot of permanent impact but will not result in a loss of jurisdictional
waters. The culvert design maintains the upstream/downstream hydrologic connection, low flows
and the aquatic life passage of Seasonal RPW Stream C. Figures 8-11 depict the proposed plan
overview, profile view, and cross-sectional view, respectively.
Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this project are limited to a total of 72
linear feet of temporary stream impacts. This temporary impact consists of a temporary stream
crossing at RPW Stream B to transport soil from the site across the stream to the north side
during the early construction phases.
Proposed permanent and temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, are summarized in Table 3 (below).
Table 3. Proposed Impacts to On -Site Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands
Jurisdictional
Feature
Impact
No.
NWP
No.
Type of Impact
Temporary/
Permanent
Figure
No(s).
Impact
(If)
Impact
(ac)
Stream C
S1
29
Culvert
Permanent
8-10
134
0.009
Stream C
S2
29
Rip rap in stream bed
keyed below the existing
grade
Permanent
8-9
32
0.002
Stream B
S3
29
Temporary road crossing
Temporary
11-13
72
0.006
Total Stream Impacts
238 If
0.017 ac.
Jurisdictional
Feature
Impact
No.
NWP
No.
Forested/
Herbaceous
Type of
Impact
Temporary/
Permanent
Figure
No.
Impact
I
Impact
ac
Wetland CC
W1
29
Forested
Fill
Permanet
8
-
0.004
Total Permanent Wetland Impacts:
-
0.004 ac.
Page 7 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
Total Temporary Stream Impacts:
72 If
0.006 ac.
Total Permanent Stream Impacts:
166 If
0.011ac.
Total Loss of jurisdictional Water of U.S.:
134 If
0.013 ac
Road Crossing Stream Impact "A"
Stream Impacts (S1 & S2) — RPW Stream B
The proposed road crossing is located in the eastern portion of the property. Culvert installation
and associated rip rap apron will result in a total of 166 linear feet of permanent impacts to
Seasonal RPW Stream C (Figures 8-10, attached). To construct the proposed road crossing, a
134 -linear foot, 60 -inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) will be installed, resulting in 134 linear feet
of permanent impacts to Seasonal RPW Stream C (S1). The proposed culvert will be buried a
minimum of one foot below the channel bed to allow passage of aquatic life and maintain low
flows. Headwalls at the inlet and outlet of the culvert will be utilized in order to minimize channel
impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Placement of rip rap apron in the stream bed, both upstream and downstream of the culvert, will
result in an additional 32 linear feet of permanent impact (S2). The proposed rip rap apron will be
keyed into the stream bed and are not considered a loss of a waters as they are constructed at
the original stream bed elevations. The placement of rip rap is necessary to prevent erosional
forces from undermining the culvert outlet, as well as maintain the integrity of the road crossing.
This will reduce the need for maintenance work on the proposed culvert in the foreseeable future
and, therefore, minimize the future impacts to the channel.
This proposed road crossing is necessary in order to complete the subdivision and to provide
sufficient ingress and egress for emergency vehicles throughout the development in accordance
with the local ordinances. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize
disturbances to downstream waters. A plan view, profile view, and cross-sectional view are
attached as Figures 8-10, respectively.
Wetland Impact 1 (WI) — Wetland CC
The culvert installation associated with the permanent stream crossing "A" will result in 0.004 acre
of permanent fill to Wetland CC (Figure 8, attached). Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
Temporary Road Crossing Stream Impact "B"
Stream Impact (S3) - RPW Stream B
Temporary impacts associated with the construction of the Scott's Run subdivision total 72 linear
feet of stream impacts for a temporary stream crossing (Figure 11, attached [S3]). The proposed
temporary stream crossing will utilize an HDPE culvert resulting in 51 linear feet of temporary
impacts, to be removed after construction is complete. Additionally, 21 linear feet of rip rap will be
temporarily installed for outlet protection at the existing grade. Temporary stream crossing over
RPW Stream B is necessary to transport soil from the site across the stream to the north side
during the early construction phases.
Page 8 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
Restoration of RPW Stream B after Temporary Crossing
All riparian areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to match pre-existing contours.
Disturbed stream banks shall be graded to their original slope and elevation. Disturbed riparian
areas and stream banks will be seeded with a temporary erosion control seed mix and
overseeded with a native mix to promote herbaceous plant growth for long term site stabilization.
Straw will be applied to stabilized riparian areas to maintain soil moisture during seed germination.
Disturbed stream banks shall be stabilized with biodegradable coir fiber matting or other coconut
fiber matting. Plantings shall consist of dormant live stakes conforming to the City of Charlotte
and Mecklenburg County requirements, and shall be installed during the dormant season,
November through March. The live stakes shall be planted so that buds point upward and
approximately 2-3 inches of stem is above the surface. At least three buds on each stake should
be installed below the ground to encourage root growth. The Stream Buffer Planting Plan
describes the species varieties to be used and the approximate count. The seeding and matting
installation of disturbed areas will occur immediately following completed grading, and live stakes
should be installed during the immediate following dormant season.
Stream Buffer Planting Plan
A planting plan will be utilized to revegetate the 100 -foot riparian buffer (50 -foot buffer along both
banks) of the disturbed stream channel. Natural coconut matting (coir matting) will be installed on
both banks of disturbed stream once the temporary HDPE pipe is removed. Live stakes will be
installed on the stream banks for bank stabilization and erosion control. Vegetation species will be
chosen based on the existing plant community and native species will be planted to increase
species diversity, particularly in the riparian zone.
The area of disturbance for the stream restoration consists of two zones: 1) stream banks and 2)
riparian buffer (Figures 14 and 15, attached). Native riparian plant species such as silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), black willow (Salix nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and soft rush
(Juncus effusus) will be planted on the lower stream banks (Zone 1, approximately 230 square
feet [sq ft]). The riparian buffer will be planted with species such as red maple, green ash,
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin [Zone 2, approximately 7,200 sq ft).
Planting plan and seeding details are summarized in Tables 4 (below) and Table 5 (next page).
Table 4. Proposed Planting Plan
Page 9 of 11
Zone 1 - Stream Banks (230 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Soft rush
Juncus effusus
Plug
1' Toe*
144
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Live stake
2' 0. C.
66
Black willow
Salix nigra
Live stake
2' 0. C.
66
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
Live stake
2' 0. C.
66
* Every 1' at toe of slopes on both banks.
Zone 2 - Riparian Buffer to Plant 7,200 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Three gallon
4' 0. C.
519
River birch
Betula nigra
Three gallon
4' 0. C.
519
Red maple
Acerrubrum
Three gallon
4' 0. C.
519
Slippery elm
Ulmus rubra
Three gallon
4' 0. C.
519
Page 9 of 11

Scott's Run April 4, 2017
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890 CWS Project No. 2014-3511
Matting must be coir 200 gram at toe of stream bank secured with cinch stakesTI". The second
row of matting must be c125bn coconut matting secured with cinch stakesTM with three-inch on
center spacing. All native seed with appropriate temporary seed should be broadcast only using
designer approved techniques. All work must be directed and supervised by a professional
wetland scientist.
Table 5. Proposed Seeding Plan
All Zones: Permanent Riparian Seed Mix; 7,430 sq ft (0.17 ac.)
Common name
Botanical name
% Mix
Red -top panicgrass
Panicum rigidulum
20
Little blue stem
Schizachyrium scoparium
15
Lanceleaf tickseed
Coreopsis lanceolata
10
Partridge pea
Chamaecrista fasciculata
10
Black-eyed susan
Rudbeckia hirta
10
Beaked panicgrass
Panicum anceps
10
River oats
Chasmanthium latifolium
5
Deer tongue
Dichanthelium clandestinum
5
Virginia wild rye
Elymus virginicus
5
Purple top
Tridens flavus
5
Tickseed sunflower
Bidens aristosa
5
apply at 25 lbs/acre
All Zones: Temporary Seed Mix; 7,430 sq ft (0.17 ac.)
Early Summer Season
Winter Season
Seeding Mixture
40 lbs/acre of German Millet
or Brown Top Millet
40 lbs/acre Rye (grain)
80 lbs/acre Tall Fescue
Seeding Dates
May 1st - September 15th
September 15th - May
1st
Seeding Amendments
Apply limestone and fertilizer per soil tests, or 2000
lbs/acre limestone and 750 lbs/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent loss of waters of the U.S. is limited to 134 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel
and 0.004 acre of wetlands. Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total 72 linear
feet of stream channel due temporary stream crossing that may be later permitted as a permanent
crossing. As the total loss of jurisdictional stream channel is less than 150 linear feet and total loss
of jurisdictional wetlands are less than one-tenth an acre, mitigation for the proposed impacts is
not required at this time. However, the potential second permanent road crossing will require
mitigation at the later construction phases, if applicable.
On behalf of True Homes, LLC, CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction Notification Application
with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31, and pursuant
to Nationwide Permit No. 29 and WQC No. 3890.
Page 10 of 11

Scott's Run
Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certificate No. 3890
April 4, 2017
CWS Project No. 2014-3511
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not
hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704-408-1683 or [e-mail] should you have any
questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
�A�9�1i16ipy
W E T4,,1
� CO m .�
LL
NO 0
s'tiRFGGG ;N 4-' 4
Aliisa Harjuniemi, WPIT
Project Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1:
Vicinity Map
Figure 2:
USGS Site Location
Figure 3:
Aerial Imagery
Figure 4:
Jurisdictional Boundaries
Figure 5:
Original Design
Figure 6:
Original Design
Figure 7:
Overall Site Layout
Figure 8:
Road Crossing Stream Impact "A" Plan View (S1, S2, and W1)
Figure 9:
Road Crossing Stream Impact "A" Profile (S1 and S2)
Figure 10.
Road Crossing Stream Impact "A" Cross -Section (S1)
Figure 11:
Temporary Road Crossing Stream Impact "B" Plan View (S3)
Figure 12:
Temporary Road Crossing Stream Impact "B" Profile (S3)
Figure 13:
Temporary Road Crossing Stream Impact "B" Cross -Section (S3)
Figure 14:
Temporary Stream Channel Impact - Restoration Detail
Figure 15:
Planting Plan with Cross -Sectional View
Attachment A - Agent Authorization Form
Attachment B - Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to NWP No. 29
Attachment C - SHPO Map
Attachment D - NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment E - NC SAM Forms
Page 11 of 11

C:\Users\AliisaHarjmiemi\Desktop\Scotts RUN\Revised Permit Maps\Figu a 1_Vicinity.mxd

C:\Users\AliisaHarjuniemi\Desktop\Scotts RUN\Revised Permit Maps\Figure2_USGS.=d

2
e1
1 �a : -
Legend
Project Limits (35.9 ac.)
Roads
Parcels
o 400 200 0 400 Feet
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, DATED 2015.
BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2016.
KVIIIIIIIIIIi
SCALE:
1 inch = 400 feet DAFE. 3/6/2017 Aerial Imagery FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY.
2014-3511 AVH Scott's Run
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Charlotte, North Carolina 3
GCA WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2014-3511
C:\Usen\AliisaHujmiemi\Desktop\Scotts RUN\Revised Permit Maps\Figwe3_Aerial.mxd

thaw w I nrarwfy)
1
!
a n 11 it - COMM'[} OPFN SPAd
z
HRtiQICM1E PARSE 1, MAP HFtO IGI+LCAE RASE 1. hiAP3 _E U
z
MB 3ORE-,T DRINr
- -
O d
- - x Ts.
(
OPSPAIiC7 I! . I li 'h 1 149 .{U]
`'L
72
'Oo 3VIER� Fi3ASE: 1 LJ
z
_- _f43
d51 1 Itch KhiE 7,�
TUTALUMAC.
j �
- . a - • _,r x - - - - rxLssav�fcars 47� JW
44
I IAP\ ` Y iY?TAL LPA AC r 8
192
t' .._rQ�w
- AckL
—V
R b
} J
{{ Q
��� •rV I
o p. nRns i �a�, #
6
O. 7Q''t. I SFT
R !
A�w
! � �i r• � a �.,-_ J- G1YCEti..
N
VOIDA o
'\ r %. •rRI=.r;.A s 4 `� - +�'.�� is u ti .�
h -, L TOTAL ACREAGE: 35,85.1 ACRES C L
AREA 1H DUAE POKER R1W 2.T7 AC
TOTAL AMEAW FOR DE7RSTY = 33.79 RG
7, LO`f DENSITY CALCMATMa-
1 Y_~ TREESASE AREA TAI C,4.S = A79 AG O V U
r - M!X SAW PERCM7ACE � R7913379
p zayWc A4LONED FAR > 2510 TRE€ sAW R-•4 ausmR
TOTAL HUMBER OF LDTS ALLO No
J. LOTS PRONAkb: 92
Original Design. 4. TOTAL CRS AREA PROMFOr m
5. : PER �R
Legend
- 79 _ 1,150 if of permanent stream impacts ,.'
co ON ME. 3'
AT RTw . PLAIVI rt - _ REAR.'PER7k}�E. � Project Limits (35.9 ac.)
SE i, MAP z- -` •'• `; - 1 - - - - SOES7RFET,' 10 -Original Design - Stream Impact
3"9$y 8. AW PARCEL 10: C311,52JO,
e ,,Aj , , _._ 7. MANIUN LOT 59E• 8,000 &F Avoided RPW
!1 f MNAWUM Lor lwor♦, so"
B. CURRENT zOH.WC: R-3 pE9'C'.
73 f ExcFrr roR NmrAL ARA ww .... Avoided Seasonal RPW
1 / 9. MO'PFRTY OPNWS) X NOFAiN
PLAN 1R M-M AfMnNCES 462v_945 Avoided Wetland
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND LAYER PROVIDED BYLATHAM-WALTERS MAP Original Design rejected due exceeding Nationwide :T. WAIERSHM- LAKE W-M& PA h Plp
e
ENGINEERS, INC., DATED 2012. 3-973 AMUMUM IVPER FIGURE NO.
WRERWOOS AREA
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED Permit Threshold and not meeting Avoidance and IMMMUS
TOTAL: Ayr AG (z3.67X)
(FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED USING A
SUB-FOOT GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON JUNE 21, 2016. JURISDICTIONAL�/�• 71 • 200 100 0 200 Feet
FEATURES WERE FIELD VERIFIED BY THE USACE ON NOVEMBER 3, Minimization Requirements.
2016 (SAW-2016-02206). 5

im 4b
` n - L•
.. .......... i
; '1'y Site
a
of Y
-•n 153 61 an nom,. ,Y..,... i t: 1- v '°^".,% t ".
Ift
_
Vicinity
Vf Map
HPL To Scala
p t
{ Crossing #2
Site Data:
149 if Stream Impact a'
NC SAM Score "LOW".
Total Acreage: •J-35.87 Acm
.t
' ` tocafipn: Charlotte, NC
v
r' Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed ZPnin gStandartiv FtA Ouster
Note: Per section 21 "95 of the ChinkAu Tree Ordiris e, sites
y Ail4 greatar than 25%tree Save Or open space area may apply
. ^rw R ^.t,ol 51,11 •,Ile cluster provision Flet the lot Site and width of toe rr Rd foyer
rlE z!ity,SrE, • .' .,.d'1 P. t ld l' n r zorilngcceory.
_ I E ��c E +?s- •�•I `° s4. Cluoer tot 5tandardz
.._✓ fi id !nvesnganon{ :�-y .
541 - Lot width Ikr+n.l
6,0Wsf Min. Lot Area
w F J
•..:»
Minimum Setbacks,
c 7 t �t i0.• Side!S'
Project s (3 c.) ..,� mar. 33•
', 65[ `' 4 : '1 >r• `�` f s• 1 �`' u,.... Pn[ennal royal Units: t1-72 Sin-Fara�ily LnLS
U� (}
P ct Limit 5 9 a
1
Pot—, vro a J_ IAppro,, x1ay`9
111
v !.. !� t M 1
� , _ - ''° � Pte tlat Density: .:1- 2.04 PV/At
J O S]a.:.l M1 ? k
te
y t nrs I � '
o'pe Space rwbP area see a4_ a :
J +• r 4 Min- IRequired: .J s il Acres [x75%'
1 a ' '' Provide: +I" 12.36 Acres (35%)
Nil. S u Tree save Area {see note a"!
a *•.. nL :R - �;.� �` N�,fhwn,... •-' '� Provideauired. -1" 8-SAcm125%)
C f
G—.1 Mtns
,•r�'7� - .. f fst,L �r Cr � - • - �. I'-' ararlikurM McWenbureCwmv GlS Uauad Ermuld Le
'4-'r -.� `, 1, L't•, °..; • r$ �._ lr E ,-zlvP 11. y. JwnlanerriMrnlaml unlltN lPnEe PrvvaraonnWma S", anol
4y :J D ye yrpiI,pgry0 nN-Will field lv ChGW PM NO
t'
+ "Qf} ! r ` ^`-� - 1 E 3 P nfi oo narr.rynn ahls dxumrns
a` r '�..�. �,ty.IrTYP "�•:. - FlnadpnM mrarn+eon
J
'XI' �. - ''"�.. _"" - wrdcvaarl lr,rxmame,.an nen Erw�r Eema Elane ven!rinwrL.ewcl�e er,aeeE
N—<.1W9.
:.. iJ _'�S se mnwuana W arrn.nn
t,. ed R'ei iiury Eek den P 00V ESP
r`. --�• 9 .� i - tl ul'R P 0 I¢e MIn4�r •s.101510B AG¢n Pr P+Mhr Cerofaa
5e.—, tl h1 f wryF r W+ynso o9 WPWrmon&tlln
. epi a -1 i'i.. •. f"y` ,' 1, l] �.�I1A
. r i,,.14 R naleN,+4rd mMp"­0
eranonon rt.
• S le��[>n t _5 - �, t'n tial W ['re 0n4lPefi-' -�� p!.n a%p fa�rvMW CK Imna�
y
\\,1 Izll,y n r Prrefa fafanfofiE¢wtfy5lttera n2W tm +rG lrna!D'm IprpnGn
...� :.• r' 'nye, ''} l_.`- „ : 'rrko.t Et +",4 Cr Icer GiS] - - Pmxudarnrrnrsp: 4,rarm sidried nn•krvnnr'rnmE xvu n,:ec
_a .c ':? ,: .-:_ .:. F erook,r^arm'aa mu. x,dlcd kr.ugl v io>•atlx. or a ural maim -
'"+� 1 r^ } P nH�5h5eS�eam rc n n sed'on nc emcee
r '` -r' L ,,+ r-n,11e Cn� ClwfiWZ I,y{hdne,ec undaylpi[WbAIsu Maedr
'.'= *•' r ` ..-. , . Y f J " tl2:n, ri1, ror+relnul .ne mry be whleF rn
,
w e
I�tcws�wc�asenc�npu�arwrr+'t.
C Crossing#r d trt,n
- to + *.... . •' opa.P Sarver+ee say.
` r r fr; .•' •'... p t,• •. Q PrpE S(plre anp ITP � ge an PN.I.nn mWmmnrM i eW^ y IM
-•-„ .Y'jj (,- .- '." .. ? loeaen rulnear I n mennnaamsa�•rlwrsrIireuuikPmdu[[+Ilacnmr4 nd DEM rpa. Ity mel+.^d•^r samry,rupms'EucR as
i
"•. ...- 4�r _ � i�,f. � r�,U� tI.K CNICC1arx 0{@Cr doNl�'141+pnrtY lfaourcS rW �(rerc.l Pfa r.RMIR
�FbeIc 1— sla dnet t/lean 111 di gi+e
. M Crossing #1
.1—r- n nwu sd pa e�l^E We pena daa4M�
'- .• .:� ,• •'� .. p ed 1 l,edsu'ddlrrad.�ltw �dvetwwltwb: �,
1501f Stream Impact
k5 NC SAM Score "HIGH" elWyfeWmolcd
:' � '' rs m" kill -- m arox ere Ixe.N,,w.nc.t
l-d ­
M .M Nleawan[1 eW 1 r. anrta Ib
Jnpi,wt un Lv drnf p­d­llAe,nanunand pl+r+rlWre hlPrdennK.
�v,M_rrio atrm`P tm 4pu
Note 4luth At 05. P4m
_ I 1��..tt�� E nsIW114r a.nCknraS r+nSPd 4l lnr9rre[t,lm9m
,s34%_ ;A✓ ".Z^' i .i� a JLarnA dnrp�irfimlE4.
y Alternative Design rejected due impacts to high quality stream.
g J P g 9
Alternative Design Fi e No.
0%
Scott's Run Subdivision
Concept Plan B
June 17, 2015
Scott's Run 6
k Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2014-3511
,.
GRRPN"SCALE
Tr u e H o m e s'
Wa P f0 aPP
WE VALUE WHAT YOU VALUE
2619 Erk—ldte faane Mi.
Piro 104
oo
1 Woo a lFT.M¢n Nc?a1Io
Associates, P..A.
ESPESP
r•a.awram oafs rxtea+ndr ra.e
Crmrbe+e, Ay,',+ayif fon W1L Y2^I,Y+a
nc - �nx �z swot u - aar�arPxluP
0%
Scott's Run Subdivision
Concept Plan B
June 17, 2015
Scott's Run 6
k Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2014-3511
,.
GRRPN"SCALE
Tr u e H o m e s'
Wa P f0 aPP
WE VALUE WHAT YOU VALUE
2619 Erk—ldte faane Mi.
Piro 104
oo
1 Woo a lFT.M¢n Nc?a1Io

I 1 T
TI Z o
(uoz raovN alaoas (Q 0 -o
01 03LN3180 HaON c
mcf) > N
m
0 \ �_ a
V o m m
T X \ w�
N rn = x r s
m mFn 0-1 ro oX
cn Z
pm� �o 0o
o
{!) Z W: �� �
-1 D m
W0�mm \ ca
C X X
X ;a-0mo 00
C < A
� Z \ ,
-O
O
Z
O
GJ
O 0.6
Ov' 0 Cti v
CD m
co K a
NO 0 C �'�
C)
(D(D Cz:] Cm]
y
G) m 0'
o D >-. m/
Z =
n m
m (n
C) /�mv
00 C? +
o
71 3 n
W n
m m x -n
o� mVi
o° 10
T o --`
m Mg
C`J _
/ m
CJ
s=
o�
zc
CHECKED BY: TMM
DRAWN BY:
MSB
PROJECT NUMBER:
DM43.400
ORIGINAL DATE:
03/27/2017
�r
�I
2 X
0
9yc� Qc
0m
\%o,
oGW 1
G 0
C p
\m\ED
x
3Z
;1 D
D
z �
o
I�(j)
�
m
<0
3*
�D
m
Z�
11
�
OVERALL SITE LAYOUT Figure
SCOTT'S RUN 7
TRUE HOMES CHARLOTTE,NC
Foo'Oo �'0 0
2 X
9yc� Qc
;
\%o,
oGW 1
G 0
C p
\m\ED
3Z
;1 D
D
z �
o
I�(j)
�
m
<0
3*
�D
m
Z�
p a�
m Z D
�{
C)N
r°
Z
ic m
m�
z
OVERALL SITE LAYOUT Figure
SCOTT'S RUN 7
TRUE HOMES CHARLOTTE,NC

Ol Q31NTNO H18ON , (a
/ i rn
D�cncnr cn
O 0
(D (D cQ < >
c�D 0 M m M m m
0m �� _ �X
Co 3 �D� 0Do, a / �D
ET v v Oz0 0z �z
m ? z v m 9 D
C) ZZ w cnn �� , �
- 7 (D C w, -< W D N m
< Q (D < fn T '� O 7 (Q �. W N x
(D v O x , TI � "' ED — O O N ,
O x ( (C: (D (n ` / ((D O ((DD v N O
En C En -0 (D o� cin
t7 W (D 7 C O
(D N
■ ■ 2 (D O O D) C Cn (D 3 G m
CD ; ■FT
90O 0 Q CCD D)
D < >y En
O
_ CD .n.
■ : C � I Q 7
m (� �0 m -0 7 v x 0
m m x O ED �. h r.
z�(D
7 D 71CD cn
r M
<_
M /
m �>
o
FFF- mF
/ 000
/ + e I //� m
To
o -0 _ k + F
Al
rn
�` �n'°;�%`—
0r ��=ao�'���
O °2
x r
x co
C N / m o
T DrN //F xD ' � Lo
//� m0� n� � XO z mem -<0
�/ �O mrn �n 0 ��� �O
O AV z mm-
/ — mo
O /��� Z /
Z mil
CHECKED BY: TMM ROAD CROSSING STREAM S1, S2,
DRAWN BY: MSB
PROJECT NUMBER: DM43.400 IMPACT "A" PLAN VIEW and W1 Figure
ORIGINAL DATE: 03127/2017 8
SCOTT'S RUN
TRUE HOMES CHARLOTTE; NC

d" o
C? +
o
J M
ao
�MQpc�O
M F
0. Q0�0
0
dFoJ�
'L(n w?
670
660
PROP. RETAINING
WALL BY OTHERS
PROP. 32 -LF OF RIPRAP—\
OUTLET PROTECTION
650
PROP. INLET INV. =—
±648.24 AT 1' BELOW
STREAM C.L. ELEVATION 645
PROP. RETAINING
WALL BY OTHERS
PROP. 8" PVC SAN.
SEWER (TYP)
ST. GRADE (TYP)
PROP. INLET INV. =
±654.10 AT1' BELOW
STREAM C.L. ELEVATION
0 0 0- o 1 L
to
ccoo to coo co co c_n
A A'
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
ROAD CROSSING STREAM
IMPACT "A" PROFILE
SCOTT'S RUN
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
ESP Figure
9
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 4 FT.
S1
PROJECT NUMBER: DM43.400
and S2
DATE: 0312712017
SCALE: I"= 40'
.OTTE. NC
DRAWN BY/CHK BY: MSB/TMM
ESP Figure
9

670
660
[4.1k,
Q
0 0
0
ti 00 CD o
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
7
GRAPHIC SCALE
o 40
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
1 INCH = 4 FT
ROAD CROSSING STREAM Sl PROJECT NUMBER: DM43.400
IMPACT "A" SECTION DATL03/27/2017 Ee'n Figure
SCOTT'S RUN SCTRUE HOMES CHARLOTTE, NC DRY: MSBITMM
■NN■■
■■OM■■■■
■■■■EM■■■SEM
■■!�■■MNON
■■■■N■■MI■
■■■■■11
■M■■■
It■■MNON
■MM■O■■
■■■■■MENEEMI11
"
om'mmmmIQ1■■■■11■■■
■
■���M■a■■■11■■■■■
■
■■■■■■O�i�■■■1�I�1\■■■■■■MONO
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
7
GRAPHIC SCALE
o 40
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
1 INCH = 4 FT
ROAD CROSSING STREAM Sl PROJECT NUMBER: DM43.400
IMPACT "A" SECTION DATL03/27/2017 Ee'n Figure
SCOTT'S RUN SCTRUE HOMES CHARLOTTE, NC DRY: MSBITMM

A
0
0
ol
0
z
✓V
(I LOZ £BOVN mWN
01 MINING KLMON
Dcnr
o m cQ
Qv M
0-- a
U)3
(Dv
v0
3
CD
0
v
�\
� fF / I \ m
5 , \l 1��0
��0
W
00
rV�o
m0
zcn\\�F
-L-\�
\ /
F
D 9�
\ \ I xD� ��� I \ \ Q (fDDo rvG'\
\ _moo- � m°� @ < -
\ x� / I m u o -v1? o
SNC CD - mv
wo ,� 1 \�A
I
CA) CD
> � En
VA V� m \� m m
X vVA�\V
\�
00
°'�� cn
mc»e "zo
Z0� / �� i
L'b C, / $ 20/
Z ;u CA "' v ♦ / /
0c-
\ \\\ VAIII I\VA\ VAVAAVA��' `�clll
o z
oo x
,, ,--Ico m,
-4c"—n\\\\\ \\\\, =Dai \� \ I 'ZF -6i
mm -i V A -��� �\ m���c�
��o�\ \ �� �zr�-m \V A 1 , I ;U co
\\\V�� ��-0 1v� O�n�ALI I mD/
1 -A
Amo`. c,I
I / SII 0�Ilml III��■I // //�j
i�l'I I jI FF I /
CHECKED BY: TMM TEMPORARY ROAD CROSSING s3
DRAWN BY: PROJECT NUMBER: DM43400 STREAM IMPACT "B" PLAN VIEW Figure
ORIGINAL DATE: 03127/2017 SCOTT'S RUN 11
VK COVINGTON, LLC. CHARLOTTE, NC

0
0 CDCD
T
610Q
'S UL ER
VE O
DE
PR OP
Do 13 , P
600 N
J
9L jO LA
N� cp
dy W ?
NLL_.
Q a U j >
mr-UJ ?
4
PROP.PRECAST
1
HEAD WALL
PROP PRECAST
EXIST. GRADE (TYP)
END Wt LL ClILVERT
590
PROP. 21 -LF C pp, kp�,
OUTLET PR( TE TICN
60 HDI E ( S -72)
47.12 L Q 1.21
f5 5.1 A 1' E
58 .15
T' B L W
ST E L. LEA 10
TRA
C.. E E TI N
580
o
r
c0 M c'i
co 49
f�
c9
co
U° O>
N
�
A
A'
GRAPHIC SCALE
am
PRELIMINARY
a
zm
(IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
NOTFOR
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
CONSTRUCTION
(IN FEET)
1 INCH = 4 FT.
TEMPORARY ROAD CROSSING
S3 PROJECT NUMBER]DM43.400
STREAM IMPACT "B" PROFILE
DATE: 031272017
ESp
Figure
12
SCOTT S RUNSCALE:1"=49
TRUE HOMES
CHARLOTTE, NC DRAWN BYICHK BY

Q
0 Ln
O
r r
EIS. C
RAE
® RAD
C L
600
R R E
A C/
in
w
\ �
U
590
EXIST. G D
BOTTOM OF STREAM
6."H PE DS
m
m
4 .32 F 2.2 °o
n
Ic— J
M W
580
co
o N
m cl) N tt
Io
M
Lc)
�
Lf) u7 N
Bl
R
B
GRAPHIC SCALE
PRELIMINARY
a
,eo
( IN FEET)
NOT FOR
1 INCH = 40 FT.
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
CONSTRUCTION
(IN FEET)
IINCH = 4 FT.
TEMPORARY ROAD CROSSING
S3
PROJECT NUMBER]M43,4IMI
STREAM IMPACT "B" SECTION
Figure
13-RUE
DATE:03127Y2017ESp
SCOTT'S RUN
SCALE:1"=49
Lr
ItOMES
CHARLOTTE, NC
DRAWN BYICHK BY

MEASURES APPLICABLE
TO BOTH SIDES OF CREEK
l - _ — — r9l o0
0 0_aD
0 0 ri E3 U4 ti N n 7
CD
000mK �5 o a
if 0 z �.T E;
D C m
O Z Z= o o
Z
2' MIN r 0 m c o a
� D � i co p oc' �4 c
mO O 0 o w
o o
0 O
K y Z � B m o y 5;-
U
y t'jo" CD
° a
as
EjCCD a ° CWD w CD io
NNr" 0 ua CD�d
0 0 CD C a y'
90 o
00 �.
� � m
w
_ rn w
G' in
N
° l /
a w o coCD ZCIDn
vayw���
a +� m >
--1z0
a m ° 0 G)
(n
z
O � —
Zcn
� D Z -
mzn(/) W
nco> o
r O
C D � z z —
n �J o�m= = a
0--1
Z l,ll III
Z
CHECKED BY: TMM TEMPORARY STREAM CHANNEL IMPACT
DRAWN BY: MSB Figure
PROJECT NUMBER: DM43.400 RESTORATION DETAIL g
ORIGINAL DATE: 03/27/2017 SCOTT'S RUNI EP 14
TRUE HOMES CHARLOTTE, NC
G
N
P•
�
A
�
�
y
�
G �`

O o w
0 0 0
O r r
600
A'Il]
EXIST
BOTTOM OF
580
Legend
Zone 1 - Stream Banks:
Zone 2 - Riparian Buffer:
GRAPHIC SCALE
PRELIMINARY a
Zone 1 -Stream Banks (230 sq ft)
( IN FEET)
Common name
Botanicalname
Size
Spacing
14of Plants
Soft rush
Juncuseffusus
Plug
1'Toe*
144
Silkv dogwood
Cornus amomum
Live stake
2' O.C.
66
Black willow
calix nigra
Live stake
TOC_
66
EklerbetTy
Sambucus canadensas
Live Stake
TO.C.
66
Every Vat toe of slopes Dn loth banks.
Zone 2 -Riparian Buffer to Plant (7,200 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Sp icebush
Lind -ora benzoin
Three gallon
40 C_
519
Green ash
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
Three gallon
4 O.C.
519
Red maple
Acerrubrum
Threegallon
TO.C.
519
Slippery An
Ulmusrubra
Three gallon
4 Q.C.
519
Legend
Zone 1 - Stream Banks:
Zone 2 - Riparian Buffer:
GRAPHIC SCALE
PRELIMINARY a
,eo
( IN FEET)
NOT FOR
1 INCH = 40 FT.
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
CONSTRUCTION
(IN FEET)
IINCH = 4 FT.
Planting Plan with Cross -Sectional View
PROJECT NUMBER]DM4-3.400
Figure
15
DATE:03127rmnESP
SCOTT'S RUN
SCALE: 1"
-RUE I'.OMES
CHARLOTTE, NC
DRAWN BYICHK BY

Attachment A
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representative of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to ender 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 jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
I, Mr. Jeffrey M, Reasner, representing True Homes, LLC, hereby certify that I 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,
Date
Agent's signature
Date
10-28-2016
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

,,'F NfAiEo
fit,.- ¢� viiwc voc viuy.
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 Januar2009
Attachment B
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
N Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes N No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
N 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes N No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes N 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 N No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes N
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes N No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Scott's Run
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
TRUE HOMES LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
28992-692
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mr. Jeffrey M. Reasner
3d.
Street address:
2649 BREKONRIDGE CENTRE DR
3e. City, state, zip:
MONROE NC 28110
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify: Client
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:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
03115230
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.311474° Longitude: -80.983274°
1 c. Property size:
35.9 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
UT to Catawba river
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV, CA, PA
2c. River basin:
Catawba (HUC# 03050101)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site consists of undeveloped upland wooded areas. Typical overstory vegetation includes loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), white oak (Quercus alba), Northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Common understory species found on site include eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ground cedar (Diphasiastrum
digitatum), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.234 acre of jurisdictional wetland area
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 3,018 linear feet of
perennial stream channel, 243 linear feet of intermittent stream channel
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to develop approximately 21 of 35.9 acres of the property into a single-family residential
development. This project will provide residential housing within Charlotte, North Carolina to meet the growth and demand of
an area of Mecklenburg County that is experiencing significant population growth due to its proximity to downtown Charlotte,
North Carolina. This property is in a prime location based on its proximity to Interstate 485.
This project is not a phased project, but it will have an additional impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in the foreseeable
future. This future impact consists of a permanent road crossing at the location of the currently proposed temporary road
crossing (Temporary Road Crossing "B" in this permit application). The timing on the permanent road crossing is market driven
and would occur at the best in 2020 or later. The impacts associated with the future permanent crossing will be permitted and
impact totals will be evaluated cumulatively. Mitigation requirements will be met if necessary. Adjoining subdivisions are all
owned by individuals and/or companies not associated with this subdivision.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: (see next page)
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

3e. Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 29, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this
project are limited to a total of 0.004 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 166 If of jurisdictional stream channel. The proposed
culvert installation will result in 134 -linear foot loss of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The proposed rip rap apron downstream
of the culvert will result in an additional 32 -linear foot of permanent impact but will not result in a loss of jurisdictional waters.
The culvert design maintains the upstream/downstream hydrologic connection, low flows and the aquatic life passage of
Seasonal RPW Stream C. Figures 8-11 depict the proposed plan overview, profile view, and cross-sectional view, respectively.
Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this project are limited to a total of 72 linear feet of temporary strea
impacts. This temporary impact consists of a temporary stream crossing at RPW Stream B to transport soil from the site
across the stream to the north side during the early construction phases.
Road Crossing Stream Impact "A"
Stream Impacts (S1 & S2) — RPW Stream B
The proposed road crossing is located in the eastern portion of the property. Culvert installation and associated rip rap apron
will result in a total of 166 linear feet of permanent impacts to Seasonal RPW Stream C (Figures 8-10, attached). To construct
the proposed road crossing, a 134 -linear foot, 60 -inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) will be installed, resulting in 134 linear feet
of permanent impacts to Seasonal RPW Stream C (S1). The proposed culvert will be buried a minimum of one foot below the
channel bed to allow passage of aquatic life and maintain low flows. Headwalls at the inlet and outlet of the culvert will be
utilized in order to minimize channel impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Placement of rip rap apron in the stream bed, both upstream and downstream of the culvert, will result in an additional 32 lineal
feet of permanent impact (S2). The proposed rip rap apron will be keyed into the stream bed and are not considered a loss of
a waters as they are constructed at the original stream bed elevations. The placement of rip rap is necessary to prevent
erosional forces from undermining the culvert outlet, as well as maintain the integrity of the road crossing. This will reduce the
need for maintenance work on the proposed culvert in the foreseeable future and, therefore, minimize the future impacts to the
channel.
This proposed road crossing is necessary in order to complete the subdivision and to provide sufficient ingress and egress for
emergency vehicles throughout the development in accordance with the local ordinances. Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. A plan view, profile view, and cross-sectional view are
attached as Figures 8-10, respectively.
Wetland Impact 1 (WI) — Wetland CC
The culvert installation associated with the permanent stream crossing "A" will result in 0.004 acre of permanent fill to Wetland
CC (Figure 8, attached). Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters.
Temporary Road Crossing Stream Impact "B"
Stream Impact (S3) - RPW Stream B
Temporary impacts associated with the construction of the Scott's Run subdivision total 72 linear feet of stream impacts for a
temporary stream crossing (Figure 11, attached [S31). The proposed temporary stream crossing will utilize an HDPE culvert
resulting in 51 linear feet of temporary impacts, to be removed after construction is complete. Additionally, 21 linear feet of rip
rap will be temporarily installed for outlet protection at the existing grade. Temporary stream crossing over RPW Stream B is
necessary to transport soil from the site across the stream to the north side during the early construction phases.
Restoration of RPW Stream B after Temporary Crossing
All riparian areas disturbed by the work shall be re -graded to match pre-existing contours. Disturbed stream banks shall be
graded to their original slope and elevation. Disturbed riparian areas and stream banks will be seeded with a temporary erosion
control seed mix and overseeded with a native mix to promote herbaceous plant growth for long term site stabilization. Straw
will be applied to stabilized riparian areas to maintain soil moisture during seed germination. Disturbed stream banks shall be
stabilized with biodegradable coir fiber matting or other coconut fiber matting. Plantings shall consist of dormant live stakes
conforming to the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County requirements, and shall be installed during the dormant season,
November through March. The live stakes shall be planted so that buds point upward and approximately 2-3 inches of stem is
above the surface. At least three buds on each stake should be installed below the ground to encourage root growth. The
Stream Buffer Planting Plan describes the species varieties to be used and the approximate count. The seeding and matting
installation of disturbed areas will occur immediately following completed grading, and live stakes should be installed during the
immediate following dormant season.
Please see the cover letter for detailed stream buffer planting plan.
Page 4 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
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):
Carolina Wetland Services
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A request for a preliminary jurisdictional determination was submitted to the USACE on November 3, 2016. On -Site
jurisdictional features were field -verified by Mr. David Shaeffer of the USACE on November 10, 2016 (SAW -2016-02206).
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes N No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes N No
6b. If yes, explain.
Temporary stream crossing over RPW Stream B is necessary to transport soil from the site across the stream to the north side
during the early construction phases. Please see the cover letter for more details.
This temporary stream crossing may be later permitted as a permanent crossing. The potential second permanent road
crossing will require mitigation at the later construction phases, if applicable.
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® 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. Area
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1
p
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.004
W2
_
W3
_
W4
_
W5
_
W6
_
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.004 ac.
2h. Comments: Permanent impacts to Wetlands total 0.004 acre.
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 (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1
p
Culvert
Stream C
INT
Corps
4
134
S2
p
Rip Rap keyed below
Stream C
INT
Corps
4
32
existing grade
S3
p
Temporary Culvert
Stream B
PER
Corps
5
72
S4
_
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
238 If
3i. Comments: Permanent impacts to streams total 166 linear feet impacts to Seasonal RPW stream. Permanent loss of
waters of the U.S. is limited to 134 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel and 0.004 acre of wetlands.
Page 6 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
-
Choose One
Choose
02
-
Choose One
Choose
03
-
Choose One
Choose
04
-
Choose One
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose One
P2
Choose One
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
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. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number-
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
-
Yes/No
B2
-
Yes/No
B3
-
Yes/No
B4
-
Yes/No
B5
_
Yes/No
B6
-
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
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. Construction activities and impacts to
on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permits 29 and Water Quality Certificate No.
3890. All work will be constructed in the dry.
Project related permanent impacts to jurisdictional tributaries are limited to 166 linear feet of intermittent stream channel and
0.004 acres of wetlands (W1). Permanent stream impacts consist of a culvert installation for a road crossing (S1) and an
associated rip rap apron (S2), which will be keyed below existing channel grade. The net permanent loss of jurisdictional waters
For the project totals 134 linear feet and does not include the rip rap apron. Temporary impacts to jurisdictional tributaries are
limited to 72 linear feet of perennial stream channel (S3) for a temporary road crossing (Figures 7-13, attached).
In order to avoid and minimize adverse effects to jurisdictional waters to the maximum extent practicable, four different
alternatives were considered. These alternatives include 1) No Build Alternative, 2) Original Design, 3) Alternative Design, and
4) Proposed Design. These alternatives are described in the cover letter, attached.
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. Construction
activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 a
Water Quality Certificate No. 3890. All work will be constructed in the dry.
is project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts wherever possible. We believe that the current site
n is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the
,atest extent practicable.
Page 8 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑x No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose One
Type: Choose One
Type: Choose One
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose One
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
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 ❑x 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)
Page 9 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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
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
and erosion control plans have been submitted to the City of Charlotte for review.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Charlotte
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
® Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply):
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes M No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
El HQWEl
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
❑ Yes M No
attached?
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 11 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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?
1 b.
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
J No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
-i No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
Z No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
Z No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance
with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The Scott's Run development is a single and complete project.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The proposed project will install new sewerlines that will be used for the subdivision.
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑x Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑x Yes ❑ No
impacts?
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?
CWS scientists performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on March
6, 2017 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat
located within the project area. Based on the NCNHP review, there are no records of federally -protected species within the
project limits. Within a mile of the project area there are two recorded populations of Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). A copy of the NCNHP report is attached.
On March 22, 2017 CWS scientists conducted a pedestrian survey of the project area for federally -protected species.
Transects were assessed along the areas identified as potential habitat, as applicable, for potentially occurring federally -
protected species. A letter requesting concurrence was sent the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) on
March 30, 2017. As a date of submittal, no response have been received from the USFWS.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑x No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on March 7, 2017 to determine the
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. CWS
also consulted the SHPO online GIS service, the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission online database,
and the Mecklenburg County Polaris 3G historical mapping program and found no historical structures, buildings, sites, or
districts within the project limits. As a date of submittal, no response has been received from the SHPO.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
No aboveground fill within the FEMA -100 year floodplain is proposed.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Firm No. 3710450700M
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

Awnr
Mr. Gregg Antemann 4.4.2017
Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name signature is valid only if an authorization letter Date
from the applicant is provided.)
Page 14 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

State Historic Preservation Office Map - Scott's Run
March 7, 2017
NIR Points
NR Individual Listing
NR Listing, Gone
Befit
Project Limits (35.9 ac.)
-6"' 5:
r y4
Div
aka
MECKLENBURG
Lai) gacre Dr
Ew, w
fie
Gint Dr % 11� "Al 00
a
6 11-1. fe,
1:12,000
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 mi
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 km
Sources: Esn HERE, Del-orrne, USGS, Internap, INCREMENT P, NRCan
Esri Japan, MET, Esd China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),
Mapmylndia, NGCC, @ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
ti
March 7, 2017
NIR Points
NR Individual Listing
NR Listing, Gone
Befit
Project Limits (35.9 ac.)
-6"' 5:
r y4
Div
aka
MECKLENBURG
Lai) gacre Dr
Ew, w
fie
Gint Dr % 11� "Al 00
a
6 11-1. fe,
1:12,000
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 mi
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 km
Sources: Esn HERE, Del-orrne, USGS, Internap, INCREMENT P, NRCan
Esri Japan, MET, Esd China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),
Mapmylndia, NGCC, @ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User

Notura; and
Carturar Resaurcvs
March 6, 2017
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
RE: Scott's Run; 2014-3511
Dear Aliisa Harjuniemi:
ROY COOPER
cal er"'I
BUST H. ]EU
L -11 LT0'_Y
_ �aem'><
Attachment D
N C N H D E-3072
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources 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. Please note that 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. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists.
In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may
update our records.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please 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 not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) easement,
or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Matthew Hebb at matthew.hebbancdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
— ' Nothing Compares --_
3taLL of Minh [arnfina I D2partM2ntwnf Natural and fultural Resaum!s I tlatural ridge Pragram
L21 W. lams SUeEC I Raleigh, INC 27am
1651 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1651
www..ncnhP_DFg 1 919-707-6107

Page 2 of 4
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Scott's Run
Project No. 2014-3511
March 6, 2017
NCNHDE-3072
Element Occurrences Documented
Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
EO ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
Last
Element Accuracy Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date
Rank
Butterfly
34493
Neonympha helicta
Helicta Satyr
1940-06-15
H
5 -Very ---
Significantly
G3G4
S1?
Low
Rare
Freshwater
31504
Strophitus undulatus
Creeper
2005-05-03
E
3 -Medium ---
Threatened
G5
S3
Bivalve
Freshwater
29548
Villosa delumbis
Eastern Creekshell
2005-05-03
E
3 -Medium ---
Significantly
G4
S4
Bivalve
Rare
Moss
23253
Fissidens scalaris
A Plume Moss
1934-11-08
H
3 -Medium ---
Significantly
GNR
SH
Rare Other
Natural
33726
Mesic Mixed Hardwood
---
2015-04-08
C
2 -High ---
---
G3
S3
Community
Forest (Coastal Plain
Subtype)
Vascular Plant
13743
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall Larkspur
1800s
Hi?
5 -Very ---
Endangered
G3
S2
Low
Vascular Plant
16831
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's Sunflower
1999-06-30
D
3 -Medium Endangered
Endangered
G3
S3
Vascular Plant
20625
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's Sunflower
2010
X
2 -High Endangered
Endangered
G3
S3
Vascular Plant
34548
Ilex longipes
Georgia Holly
2015-04-08
BC
2 -High ---
Significantly
G5
S1
Rare Peripheral
Vascular Plant
23042
Matelea decipiens
Glade Milkvine
2015
E
3 -Medium ---
Significantly
G5
S3
Rare Peripheral
Vascular Plant
23043
Parthenium auriculatum
Glade Wild Quinine
2015
E
3 -Medium ---
Significantly
G3G4
S3
Rare
Throughout
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name
Representational Rating
Collective Rating
Shuffletown Powerline Rare Plant Site
R2 (Very High)
C4 (Moderate)
Long Creek Bluff
R2 (Very High)
C4 (Moderate)
Page 2 of 4

Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund Easement NC DNCR, Clean Water Management Trust State
Fund
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https:/incnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on March 6, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-3072: Scott's Run
41119
♦ eF
` L i
wE
;i
March S. 2017
❑
Project Boundary
Q
Buffered Project Boundary
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Q
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 4 of 4
123,921
0 0.2 114 0.8 mi
0 0 325 0 65 1 3 km
Swucea: E. HERE. .n— P C— GEGW USGS
AO.. NPS, NRCRF. GeoB..a,Wd.wer FL Qd,wrce Sw.y: E.w:apan
WrI. Eur cMa {H" K }, YmWayn. Ngeai.+F. 0 9pe Sae JAap
�mwa..m ub GS U. cam,..

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Perennial Stream A - SCP I
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #: (Attachment E
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Scott's Run 2. Date of evaluation: 2/17/2016
3. Applicant/owner name: True Homes, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: KMT & AVH; CWS
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Catawba River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.311474; -80.983274
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SCP1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 659 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5' ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A �+..�� ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish 0303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/suoolementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? F- Yes MNo
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o Y ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation L ❑I Sand bottom
®C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) L ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Perennial stream A - SCP1
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o Y ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation L ❑I Sand bottom
®C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) L ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Perennial Stream A - SCP1
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ®Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amph i pod/crayfish/sh rim p)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ®Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
HE Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

Perennial Stream A - SCP 1
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ®A ®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E F Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B F Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
®A ®A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Perennial Stream A - SCP1
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Scott's Run Date of Assessment
2/17/2016
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization
KMT & AVH; CWS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Perennial Stream B - SCP2
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Scott's Run 2. Date of evaluation: 2/17/2016
3. Applicant/owner name: True Homes, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: KMT & AVH; CWS
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Catawba River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.311474; -80.983274
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SCP2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,815 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6' ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION: Perennial Stream A - SCPI
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A i+..�� ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric Perennial Stream B - SCP2
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses °, ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ( ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation LC ❑I Sand bottom
®C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) L ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams) Perennial Stream B - SCP2
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ®Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amph i pod/crayfish/sh rim p)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ®Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ®Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
HE Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams) Perennial Stream B - SCP2
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ®A ®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E F Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B F Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ®A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet Perennial Stream B - SCP2
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Scott's Run Date of Assessment
2/17/2016
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization
KMT & AVH; CWS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Seasonal Stream C - SCP3
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Scott's Run 2. Date of evaluation: 2/17/2016
3. Applicant/owner name: True Homes, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: KMT & AVH; CWS
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Catawba River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.311474; -80.983274
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SCP3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 247 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6' ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A i+..�� ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish 0303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses °, ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ( ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation LC ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) L ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Seasonal Stream C - SCP3
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses °, ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ( ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation LC ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) L ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1la. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Seasonal Stream C - SCP3
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ®Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
® ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amph i pod/crayfish/sh rim p)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
® ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
®B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

Seasonal Stream C - SCP3
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ®A ®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E F Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B F Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Seasonal Stream C - SCP3
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
HIGH
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
(2) In -stream Habitat
Stream Site Name Scott's Run Date of Assessment 2/17/2016
MEDIUM
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization
KMT & AVH; CWS
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
MEDIUM
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
LOW
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
MEDIUM
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
MEDIUM