20180031 Ver 1_401 Application_20180118

JAN 0 4 2016
;STC
ATC Associates of North Carolina, PC
TRANSMITTAL
TO:
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer
Permitting Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone [phone]
Fax Phone
Cc:
20180031
Date: 01-04-17
FROM: "''Benjamin
V. Wilson, P.E.
ATC Associates of
North Carolina, PC
2725 E. Millbrook Rd.
Suite 121
Raleigh, NC 27604
ben.wilson(cD_atcassociates.com
Phone
919- 871-0999
Fax
919- 871-0335
Cell #
919- 697-5446
REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment
ENCLOSURES: 4 COPIES CEDAR LAKE ROAD CULVERT REPLACEMENT
REVISED PCN WITH WETLANDS AND STREAM RPT
PCN REVIEW FEE CHECK $240.00
MESSAGE:
Attached- Changes based on most recent plan
Thanks
Ben Wilson
GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENVIRONMENTAL

,<))�W A rFAQG
0 lqiiii� -V
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:T_
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑Yes Q No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Cedar Lake Road Culvert Replacement
2b.
County:
Chatham
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Pittsboro
2d.
Subdivision name:
Cedar Lake
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Andrew and Rhonda Stultz
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
9970245 Ls L -cm- u g nn
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Andrew Stultz
IA N1 A 9moT
3d.
Street address:
116 Fearrington Post
3e.
City, state, zip:
Pittsboro, NC 27312 D q- A UR E
3f.
Telephone no.:
919-423-0225 Cell I IN
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑X Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Benjamin V Wilson, PE
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
ATC Group Services
5c.
Street address:
2725 E Millbrook Road Suite 121
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27604
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-871-0999 or Cell 919-697-5446
5f.
Fax no.:
919-871-0335
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

fs�4��rea,� C2t"�ulc� d.aa

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 10002606
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
ILatitude: 35.853027 Longitude: 79.094341
1 c.
Property size:
3 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
East Branch Price Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -II -BW
2c.
River basin:
Haw River Basin
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:
Site is currently a part of a subdivision that was constructed in about 1978. The road to the residences washed out in October of 2016
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.11
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 70
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace the road access to the 11 residential units which are currently inaccessible.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of approximately fifty three (53) feet of residential roadway. See attachment for more detail.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: Andy Williams December 2016
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
0 Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company: ATC Associates
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Andy Williams visited the site in December 2016 according to the owner. No formal JD has been issued.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes 0 No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X 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.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
No
Corps
0.01
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
Culvert
Trib to east br PriceCr
PER
DWQ
2
53
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
53
3i. Comments:
Unnamed Tributary to East Branch of Price Creek
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) 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:
Conventional grading
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 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project has been designed to avoid all possible wetlands impacts. The roads are following existing driveways where possible and the house
locations are placed to avoid all possible impacts to wetlands and resulted in impacts to less than 1/10 of an acre.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
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:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes EX No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
None of the stormwater outlets is adjacent to a buffer.
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X 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:
A small stormwater BMP pond will be provided at the west end of the project. The density of the project does not require more than this.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ 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 8of10
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
❑X 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
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
F] Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
❑ Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
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.
No additional wastewater will be generated as a result of this repair.
However, all of the individual residences will have on site sewage treatment systems permitted by the Chatham County Health Department.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species in Orange Co and NC Natural Heritage Site
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?
USFWS Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species in Orange Co and NC Natural Heritage Site
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
North Carolina SHPPO
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Orange County GIS and FEMA panel 9891
Benjamin V Wilson, PE
,� .� �
12-28-17
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

401 Providence Road
Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
T:919-929-1173
F:919-493-6548
www.pennoni.conp
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Andrew Stults
itN�i►h�I�t
CAR
From: Ernest G. Dodson, P. E.; Philip Post & Associates, A Divi`t
Subject: Cedar Lake Road WashoutSEqL
023472
Date: March 21, 2017 V1 A,
Job No.: STLS1701 0 i G b
Firm License: F-1267
The following report outlines our findings for the repair of the Cedar Lake Road washout
to restore access to the properties on the north side of the two ponds. All the information
used in this report was taken from measurements and observations during site visits. All
dimensions and volumes are estimates based on this information.
To reduce costs, the dam is proposed to not be repaired to dam status, but to provide a
culvert through the embankment sized to pass the 100 -year storm event without
overtopping the roadway. The drainage area to the culvert crossing is 122 acres and
produces an estimated flow of 225 cubic feet per second in the 100 -year event. In order
to pass this flow without danger of overtopping the road, a 6 foot diameter culvert would
be required. We would propose using an aluminized corrugated metal pipe (CMP) for
the installation to reduce costs.
There are several (+/- 20) trees (mostly pines) that must be removed from the vicinity of
the work zone along with some rocks, unsuitable soils and broken paving. Some of the
soil being removed may be suitable for reuse.
Approximately 20 linear feet of the existing road on either side of the breach will need to
be excavated to provide access for the equipment from each side on a safe and reasonable
slope. This added excavation will also likely get the contractor far enough away from the
compromised soils so that tying in the new compacted fill will be easier.
It is assumed that the road repair will be at, or near, the same elevation as the existing
road. This will be necessary to ensure that the repaired road will not be overtopped in the

401 Providence Road
Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
T: 919-929-1173
F:919-493-6548
www.pennoni.com
event the downstream dam is ever repaired. If the downstream dam was to be repaired,
then both ponds would attain the same surface elevation with the culvert in place.
We also briefly studied the prospect of repairing Cedar Lake Road to act as a dam as was
previously the case. In that scenario, a more extensive earthwork operation would be
required to guarantee that the dam would hold water. A large diameter outlet structure
would need to be installed that would pass the 100 -year storm event without overtopping
the road.
Attached are some schematic sketches of the roadway cross-sections, watershed runoff
calculations and cost estimates for both scenarios. In order to move forward on either
plan, more extensive surveying of the site would be required, along with obtaining the
necessary plan approvals from Chatham County, The Army Corps of Engineers (if
required) and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction. It is likely that a Soil
Scientist would be required to verify the suitability of the soils used for repair and the
compaction during construction.
Please feel free to contact me at 919-929-1173 or at edodsonftennoni.com is you have
any questions or comments.

PROJECT NAME: CEDAR LAKE
LOCATION: CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
JOB NUMBER: STLS1701 DATE: 3/20/2017
AREA OF ANALYSIS: CULVERT ANALYSIS
This spreadsheet calculates the discharge for a given watershed for the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 -year
storms within the Raleigh -Durham -Chapel Hill area using the Rational Method, Q = CIA. Time of
concentration is calculated using the Kirpich equation; Tc = ((LA3/H)A0.385)/128. Intensity is calculated
by using the Intensity -Duration -Frequency equation; I = g/(h+Tc) with the vaiables g and h taken from
the table below and Tc from the Kirpich equation.
INTENSITY -DURATION
-FREQUENCY VARIABLES
Return period
ears
g h
2
132 18
5
169 21
10
195 22
25
232 23
50
261 24
100
290 25
ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA:
122.00 = Drainage area (acres) of watershed
0.27 = Rational runoff coefficient, composited for drainage area
446.0 = Elevation of watershed outlet at point of interest (feet above MSL)
597.0 = Elevation of most remote point above outlet (feet above MSL)
4235 = Length of main stem, outlet to ridge (feet)
RESULTS:
Time of concentration:
17.49 minutes = Tc; Time of concentration calculated by Kirpich equation
NOTE: If calculated Tc < 5 min., Use Te = 5 minutes
17.49 minutes = Tc; Time of concentration to be used for this watershed
Intensities:
3.72 inches / hour =12; Intensity of the 2 -year storm
4.39 inches / hour = I5; Intensity of the 5 -year storm
4.94 inches / hour = I10, Intensity of the 10 -year storm
5.73 inches / hour = I25; Intensity of the 25 -year storm
6.29 inches / hour = I50; Intensity of the 50 -year storm
6.82 inches / hour = I100; Intensity of the 100 -year storm
Discharges:
122.5 cubic feet per second = Q2; Flow for 2 -year storm
144.6 cubic feet per second = Q5; Flow for 5 -year storm
162.6 cubic feet per second = Q10; Flow for 10 -year storm
188.7 cubic feet per second = Q25; Flow for 25 -year storm
207.2 cubic feet per second = Q50; Flow for 50 -year storm
224.8 cubic feet per second = Q100; Flow for 100 -year storm
STLS1701streamflow

StreamStats Basin Characteristics Report
IPM
Basin Characteristics Ungaged Site Report
Date: Mon Mar 6, 2017 11:38:05 AM GMT -5
Study Area: North Carolina
NAD 1983 Latitude: 35.8531 ( 35 51 11)
NAD 1983 Longitude: -79.0943 (-79 05 40)
Page 1 of 2
Label
Value
11 Units
Definition
DRNAREA H
0.19
11 square mites1l
Area that drains to a point on a stream
OUTLETELEV 11
446
feet_
I Elevation of the stream outlet in feet above NAVD88.
ELEV 11
534 111
feet _�I
Mean Basin Elevation
MINBELEV
445 11
feet 11
Minimum basin elevation
ELEVMAX
597
feet
I Maximum basin elevation
F�FT IF
12.3
percent
Mean basin slope, based on slope percent grid from DEM
11
with 30 foot pixets
BASINPERIM
3.01
miles
Perimeter of the drainage basin as defined in SIR 2004-
5262
Change in elevation between points 10 and 85 percent
CSI -10 85fm
195.83
feet per mi
of length along main channel to basin divide divided by
length between points ft per mi
PCT M
100 11
Dercent 11
Percentage of drains a area located in Region 1
PCTREG2
0 11
percent 11
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 2
PCTREG3
0 11
percent
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 3
PCTREG4
0 11
t>ercent 71
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 4
PCTREG5
1 011rcent1
Percentage of drainage area located in Region 5
PRECIP 11—
47.6 11
inches
Mean Annual. Precipitation
124H50Y
6.85
inches
Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average
once in 50 years
SSURGOA
0
percent
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from
11
SSURGO
EsSURGOB
64.6
percent
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from
SSURGO
FSSURGOC
33.5
percent
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from
il
SSURGO
11 SSURGOD0
11
1111
percent
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from
SSURGO
PROTECTED
0
percent
Percent of protected Federal and State owned land
within the basin
LU92BARE
17.13111
percent
Percent Barren from NLCD1992
https://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/v3_beta/BCreport.htm?rcode=NC&workspaceID=NC201... 3/6/2017

StreamStats Basin Characteristics Report
Page 2 of 2
LU92DEV
I 38.402I
percent
Percent Developed from NLCD92
ILC92FOR=l
26.727
11 percent 11
Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43
LU92PLANT
1
16.253
11
percent
11
Percentage of planted area from NLCD 1992 classes 81
11 and 82
LU92WATER
11 1.48711percent
11
Percent Water from NLCD1992
LU92WETLN 1
0
ercent 11
Percent Wetland from NLCD1992
LC01 BARE —j�0
11 percent 11
Percentage of area barren land NLCD 2001 category 31
LC01 CRPHAY
11.151
percent
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and
82, from NLCD 2001
LC01 DEV
41.899
percent Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24
LCO1FOREST ,j
42.896
percent Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43
LC01 HERB
1.791
Perc
"Percentage, of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class
percent
71
LC011MP
7.78 percent Average percentage of impervious land cover from NLCD
2001
LC01SHRU6
0.895 11 percent Percents a of shrub scrub from NLCD 2001 class 52
LC01 WATER
1.368 11 percent Percentage of open water, class 11 from NLCD 2001
LC01 WETLND
011 percent Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
2001 11
LC06BARE-----Jl
0 11 Dercent Percentage of barren from NLCD 2006 class 31
LC06PLANT11
3.109 percent Percentage of planted area from NLCD 2006 classes 81
and 82
LC06DEV
42.524 11 percent Percents a of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24
LC06FOREST110.313
-percent Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43
LC06GRASS �l
1.791 percent
Percentage of grassland from NLCD 2006 class 71
LC061MP
9.1 percent
Average percentage of impervious area determined from
NLCD 2006 impervious dataset
LC06SHRU6
0.895 11 percent Percenta a of shrub scrub from NLCD 2006 class 52
LC06WATER
1.36 percent Percent of o en water, class 11 from NLCD 2006
LC06WETLND
0 percent 'IFPercentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
2006
LC I I BARF-7----jj
0 11 percent ]1 Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31
LC11CRPHAY
3.109
percent
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and
82 from NLCD 2011
LC11 DEV
111111
42.5
percent
Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 2011
classes 21-24
LC11 FOREST 11
50.313 11
percent ]I Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43
LC11GRASS
1.791
percent ji Percentage of grassland from NLCD 2011 class 71
LC11 IMP
9.18
percent
Average percentage of impervious area determined from
NLCD 2011 impervious dataset
LC11SHRUB
0.895
percent j
Percenta a of shrub scrub from NLCD 2011 class 52
LC11WATER
1.368 11
percent J1
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011
LC11WETLND
0 11
percent
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD
2011
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior I U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/v3_beta/BCreport.htm
Page Contact Information: StreamStats Flelp
Page Last Modified: 12/06/2016 22:50:12 (Webl)
Streanist:ats Status News -11SA 9W
wr
https://streamstatsags. cr.usgs.gov/v3_beta/BCreport.htm?rcode=NC&workspaceID=NC201... 3/6/2017

PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, A DIVISION of PENNONI
PROJECT: CEDAR LAIC ROAD REPAIR
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
CLIENT: ANDREW STULTS
STLS1701ce
JOB NO.: STLS1701
DATE: 03/21/17
BY: EGD
GENERAL SITE WORK TO REPAIR ROAD WITH CULVERT CROSSING
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
1 SILT FENCE, EROSION CONTROL
1
LS
$850.00
$850.00
2 TREE AND STUMP REMOVAL
20
EACH
$75.00
$1,500.00
3 REMOVAL AND HAULING OF TREES, UNSUITABLE SOILS AND DEBRIS
10
LOAD
$200.00
$2,000.00
4 SAWCUT ASPHALT
24
LF
$3.00
$72.00
5 EXCAVATE SLOPES FOR ACCESS, STOCKPILE REUSABLE MATERIAL
1
LS
$1,750.00
$1,750.00
6 6' DIAMETER ALUMINIZED CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
53
LF
$82.00
$4,346.00
7 IMPORT, PLACE AND COMPACT SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL
1280
CY
$14.75
$18,880.00
8 FINE GRADE FOR PAVING AND SEEDING
1
LS
$1,150.00
$1,150.00
9 8" ABC STONE BASE
175
SY
$9.25
$1,618.75
10 2" I-2 PAVING
175
SY
$13.40
$2,345.00
11 RIPRAP OUTLET DOWNSTREAM OF CULVERT
21
TONS
$56.00
$1,176.00
12 CHATHAM COUNTY EROSION CONTROL FEES
1
IS
$500.00
$500.00
13 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PLANS
1
LS
$4,850.00
$4,850.00
14 SEED AND MULCH
0.5
ACRE
$2,800.00
$1,400.00
15 10% CONTINGENCY
$4,243.78
ESTIMATE FOR GENERAL SITE WORK
$46,681.53
ALTERNATE TO RESTORE ROADWAY TO DAM STATUS
1 ALL WORK PTIVIS 1 -14 ABOVE WILL BE NECESSARY
1
LS
$42,437.75
$42,437.75
2 OUTLET STRUCTURE TO PASS 100 -YEAR STORM
1
LS
$8,900.00
$8,900.00
3 IMPORT COMPACTABLE CLAY TO RE -CORE +/- 300 FEET OF DAM
415
CY
$20.00
$8,300.0
4 PLACE AND COMPACT NEW DAM CORE +/- 300 FEET
300
LF
$36.00
$10,800.0
5 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PLANS
1
IS
$7,350.00
$7,350.00
6 SOIL SCIENTIST FEES FOR COMPACTION AND SOILS TESTING
1
LS
$3,640.00
$3,640.00
7 10% CONTINGENCY
$8,142.78
ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE TO RESTORE DAM
1
$89,570.53

61030'
!l
372
372
STP' rjf
2 608 `
360,,360 f00 350 �Op
+, 350 34E
348 _ _ _ +
2158, - _ 2199 297.
62240y
=55 520 62240 - — 5
Service Layer Credits: Chatham County,
Chatham County GIS
CHATHAM COLLNIY
NORTH CAROLINA
Date: 3/6/2017 "�''�•��__._,
Ti me: 11: 19:45 AM f—
Chatham County Tax
Map
555464714
379
79
2 661
68928
t 75
I�cus CH��
1
G 11
z
2603
79
37511
o'
F
,�,+
359 359
O D
t
2605
(Pncm
.K
547 _.- "`
543.-i"5$7 549
�� •�
2604 '+S
f
cn
MANNS
CHAPEL RD
�..._
^543
549
.
PdceCettHC-
_
04
C.
f 't
4
2600 .' 594
Rcraa
6t3
,f
618
2606
658
2647
0
Feet
240
120
61030'
!l
372
372
STP' rjf
2 608 `
360,,360 f00 350 �Op
+, 350 34E
348 _ _ _ +
2158, - _ 2199 297.
62240y
=55 520 62240 - — 5
Service Layer Credits: Chatham County,
Chatham County GIS
CHATHAM COLLNIY
NORTH CAROLINA
Date: 3/6/2017 "�''�•��__._,
Ti me: 11: 19:45 AM f—

Z=��\'�v�►l��l��,oZ=„�:--�t>lt`�o2t2t��I .���v�s
cn
m
2
is�� �7(`, t710 0 � � c� 11,'� � S — S s o�.� 1t� o�sy �►,
C)
�
j�►c�il�r/�`vs7t� _lo jj-4---4jxa
cL�1dW �15�-T/
t
�
1
co
CD
1
I
�.d o � • X3
dbo� x
�oZ
0
W
z
0

U
C
N
N
c�
m
M
U
l2` PAVI►.(G
�o?E� C7��-"lCN5to�5 ,�rzE
QPPizoSC.IM.1s.TE 'fa1�EtJ
(= 2ONf FIELD
46
UJ
o
LLI
m
CL
co
N
O O
U. Z

NAkT
N C
ENVIRONMENTAL• GEOTECHNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES • MATERIALS TESTING
ATC Group Services, LLC
2725 E. Millbrook Rd Suite 121 Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.atcqroupservices.com
October 11, 2017
Andrew Stults
Cell - 919.423.0225
116 Fearrington Post,
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Ms. Stephanie Goss
Environmental Specialist
NCDEQ-Raleigh Regional Office
DWQ Surface Water Protection Section
3800 Barrett Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: andrewstultsl(agmail.com
email: stephanie.gossna.ncdenr.jzo
Mr. Andy Williams email: Andrew.E.Williams2@,usace.army.mil
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
Re: Jurisdictional Waters Delineation
Proposed Cedar Lake Road Repair
594 Cedar Lake Road
Pittsboro
Chatham County
ATC Project Number STULTSI 701
Dear Mr. Stults:
ATC has completed a jurisdictional waters delineation (JWD) and stream determination in accordance
with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) for the Cedar Lake Road Repair (project) in
Pittsboro, Chatham County, North Carolina. ATC was contracted by the Owners Andrew and Rhonda
Stultz to determine if potential jurisdictional waters (PJW) occur in the project area. This letter report
summarizes the results of the JWD and application for impacts to repair Cedar Lake Road.
BACKGROUND
The project is located at the end of Cedar Lake Road and is approximately 2,000 feet from the
intersection with Manns Chapel Road in Chatham County North Carolina (Figure 1). The project is

Jurisdictional Waters Delineation -Proposed Cedar Lake Road Repair
543 Cedar Lake Road — Pittsboro - Chatham County
ATC Project Number STULTSI 701
Page 2
located on the access to an approximately 3.00 acre parcel which is owned by Andrew and Rhonda Stultz
(Parcel Identification Number 0002604 ). The surrounding area is primarily residential and agriculture.
The property currently has an access roadway and residences.
Maps of the property are included in the Appendix and photos are included with the wetlands and stream
assessment forms in the Appendix.
STREAM and WETLAND DETERMINATION
This assessment is to determine if there are streams and wetlands on the site and to delineate the streams,
stream buffers and wetlands and apply for permitting for the road repair process.
A determination was made of any potential streams and wetlands in accordance with the following
methods:
• Wetlands for 404 Permitting - A determination was made of the wetlands based on the Corps of
Engineers (COE) 1987 Wetlands Manual using the routine method and the Regional Supplement
to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
(Version 2.0) Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Corps of Engineers April 2012 which is the
currently accepted methodology.
• Streams for 404 Permitting by the (COE) - A determination was made of the streams based on
our experience with the most recent methodology used by the US Army Corp of Engineers.
• Streams for 401 Permitting and Determination of Stream Buffers by the NCDEQ Division
of Water Quality - A determination was made of the streams using the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stream determination form method. The site, is located on an
unnamed tributary to the East Branch Price Creek which drains into University Lake
approximately 2 miles to the north and ultimately into New Hope Creek and Jordan Lake.
The Site is located on an unnamed tributary to the East Branch Price Creek which drains into University
Lake approximately 2 miles to the north and ultimately into New Hope Creek and Jordan Lake. The site
is shown as having freshwater pond connected to a stream on the National Wetlands Inventory. The Site
is shown as having a stream (Feature A) on the Chatham County GIS site and a stream (Feature A) on the
Farrington, NC 7.5 Minute Quad 1978 USGS Quadrangle map (see attached maps).
A summary of features at the site is included in the tables below:
Wetlands and Streams Subject to 404 Permitting by COE and Amount Proposed for Impacts
Feature
Amount
Description
Notes
(Approximate)
Wetlands
0.5 Acres
Deciduous
Less than 0.1 acre of impacts are
Forested Shrub
estimated
Streams -Perennial
57 linear ft
Flow year round
Maximum 45 feet of impacts are
estimated
Streams
0 linear ft
Only flow for part
Intermittent
of the year

Jurisdictional Raters Delineation -Proposed Cedar Lake Road Repair
543 Cedar Lake Road — Pittsboro - Chatham County
ATC Project Number STULTS1701
Page 3
Streams and Buffers Subject to 401 Permitting by NCDEQ and Amount Proposed for Impacts
Feature
Amount
Description
Notes
(Approximate)
Maximum 45 feet of impacts are
estimated. Jordan Lake Riparian Buffers
Streams-
57 linear ft
Flow year round
are 100 feet on both sides of stream.
Perennial
Temporary impacts of 5,500 sq ft are
anticipated.
Streams
0 linear ft
Only flow for part
None
Intermittent
of the year
*Riparian Buffers — the site is located in the Jordan Lake watershed as well as the University Lake
watershed and Jordan Lake Buffers will apply to this site.
Based on the site visit and investigation there are Wetlands on the Site. There is a perennial stream on the
Site (Feature A). Approximately 45 feet of impacts to existing streams or wetlands will be required for
replacement of the road. Based on the field assessment there are approximately 0.5 acres of wetlands
adjacent to Feature A. Maps with approximate locations of the site and site features are enclosed with this
letter. Application for permits for 401 and 404 impacts are attached along with the Rapanos form.
A field visit may be required by both NCDEQ and USACOE. The signed agent authorization form is
attached.
Please contact Ben Wilson at [phone] or [phone] if you have any questions or if we can be
of further service.
Respectfully,
ATC Group Services, LLC
Jeffrey Moser, E.I.
Staff Engineer
Jeffrev.B.Mosera,atcassociates.com
Benjamin V. Wilson, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Ben. W i 1 songatcassociates.com
Attachments: Ben Wilson NCSU/NCDEQ Stream Certification
Maps of Site (4)
NWI Map (I Page)
NCDEQ Stream Form Feature A (With Photos)
Wetlands Forms (1) (With Photos)
Enclosures: Rapanos Form
JD Request Form

rimnym JPA
DEPAKII,E'tTmr NCDENR
FORESTRY + FF4
ENVIRONMENTALLM& �
RESOURCES r;
NC SPATE UNIWRS1 IN
G Y
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources
North Carolina State University
Wetlands and Stormwater Unit
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Certificate of Training
This certiftes that
Benja
in W--
has successfully completed training in
Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
For Regulatory Applications
Octobers -8, 2olo
Raleigh, NC
Training was provided on: (1) the science of stream networks, hydrologic functions of streams and riparian
zones, stream maps, and stream characteristics for identification of stream types; (2) State of North Carolina
Administrative Rules for Stream Definitions and the Protection and Maintenance of Vegetated Riparian
Buffers; and (3) the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodolga for Identification of Intermittent
and Perennial Streams and Their Origins Version 4.1 1 ptember 12010. The course included written and
field exams.
Dr. Jai D. Gregory, Ph.D. CPSS, Qo,,Pj essor Emeritus, Course Director

0
0
01
k/c;r
SITE
r0arorl FCwBras Ln
yt Adt n'q' Clr
,724
�t aF
�r
aG�
'kaadG�� �I
172
Coptic Orthodox Church 0
z
°dS4
Burger King +Q It
4o.
North Chatham Village
O
02 Fitness - Chapel
Hill/North Chatham
`yf.. Lowes Foods 6 +
ams cu of Chapel Hili _
GQle
9 f uenu Mouse. tors„ t
marc Fay; Afap data !2017 Gm0-* Unwed Stats Terms Sad feedback 500 ft
SITE LOCATION
SOURCE: Google
SITE LOCATION
Wetlands and Stream Determination
Cedar Lake Road Repair
Chatham County, North Carolina
ATC PROJECT NO. ����
STULTS1701
SCALE: NOTED ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES • MATERIALS TESTING

SITE AERIAL
SHOWING APPROXIMATE WETLANDS AND STREAM
LOCATIONS AND DATA POINT LOCATIONS
SOURCE: Google Earth
SITE AERIAL PHOTO
Wetlands and Stream Determination
Cedar Lake Road Repair
Chatham County, North Carolina
ATC PROJECT NO
STULTS1701
SCALE: NOTED
'W TC
ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES • MATERIALS TESTING

SITE USGS MAP AND TOPO
SOURCE: USGS Farrington, NC 7.5 Minute Quad 1978
SITE USGS TOPO
ATC PROJECT NO
Wetlands and Stream Determination STULTS1701
Cedar Lake Road Repair SCALE: NOTED
Chatham County, North Carolina
;STC
ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES • MATERIALS TESTING

I
j,w I Name. Address. or ParcO � c� T
14 MRIF
., % 2183 ,.
2603
a
3083 4f4RVIN.EDWARDVgryZ
1153 9 ODQeRLOGB D/?
64714
0 18722 f
p YPral I
- zt;'1s
2647
to 1'
Q' q In
371 a 76600J O 1 0 '2 58 Cie
�.- -V .7109-5 600.' ;
r! 41
fi0705
2686 Q , 71466 v 62240 CEDAR Cr '
f m
.., ' , R i! + t- �{. 78760 j
71 e } 13 P w• tiy' 11 I
25182831� ( i\ j .f cif 82028
r _ �, ' {„-.. ' _1..._ 4,�r i# 62180,E
– III Y
21301MAN CHAPEL RD
n k
71
25 <
9RR8 2691 i7( LIAMS (:;+ ` 74584 L
500 1 Do Dft 26 'AGE RD
tl 1 g� f 61`563
2640 i �=.m County, Chatham C
SITE GIS MAP SHOWING TOPO AND HYDROLOGY
I SOURCE: Chatham County GIS
SITE GIS Topo MAP
Wetlands and Stream Determination
Cedar Lake Road Repair
Chatham County, North Carolina
ATC PROJECT NO. ����
STULTS1701
SCALE: NOTED ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES • MATERIALS TESTING

Cedar Lake Road
August 30, 2017
Wetlands Im
® Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland IM
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the
base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the
Wetlands Mapper web site.
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other
Freshwater Pond Riverine
National Wetlands Inventory (NW)
This page was produced by the NWI mapper

Date: k'1311
Evaluator.
Form Version 4.11
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Projecolte: Gt'yY-!W✓2 44;' 44
Latitude: < .'-"'T
Longitude: -p°lor-),
Stream Determination (ci Other
Ephemeral lntermitten ereS1 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomo ho) Subtotal = zo
Absent
Weak
Moderaft
Stro
12, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
3 !
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
3
3. in -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
0.5
3
ri i sequence
0
1
2
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
-
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
e I
l
26. Wetland plants in streambed
3 s
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3 r
7, Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
C2
3 s
8. Headcuts
0
0
1
0.5
2
S. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
11. Second or grester order channel
No =
Yes = 3
artifidal ditches aro not rated: see discussions to manual
/r'1
B. M QP010 suoiotai t10
3 2
1
3
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3 i
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 1.6
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
-
No = 0
e I
l
l;. 01010gy tOUUEUWI
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 2
1
0
3
20. Mac robenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
31
21. Aquatic Mollusks
01
0 0.
1
1.
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
0 0.5
1
1.
24. Amphibians
0 0.5
0 0.5
1
IC
1. 1.1
1
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75: OBL =1.5
*perennial streams may ado be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Nates:
Sketch: P 9 will 41- ,q �t,�t
Ifft 6Ll l )3-C"F- I4 /1%)
r

SITE PHOTOS AUGUST 3, 2017
Wetlands and Stream Determination — Cedar Lake Road
Chatham County, North Carolina
Photograph No. 1: Breach in Dam/Roadway.
Photograph No. 2: Stream flowing through breach.
ir'ff TC
Ak
PROJECT NO. STULTS1701 AV

SITE PHOTOS AUGUST 3, 2017
Wetlands and Stream Determination - Cedar Lake Road
Chatham County, North Carolina
Photograph No. 3: Banded water snake hunting frogs.
Photograph No. 4: Stream flowing downstream of breached dam.
Ir
All
PROJECT NO. STULTS1701 or Mc

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastem Mountains and Piedmont Region
Z11,
Projecusite: ( (l if i , City/County: ` + 15t �'w� ' t ' �` "` r' a f, Sampling Date: ! ~3
State: Af C- Sampling Point; -12
irnrestigator(s): f 1 rC ;, �, .-,' section. Township, Range Loc
Landform (hin*pe, terrace, etc.): r �`-° j ` '' J al relief (concave, convex Pe M
none): SIo41107.
t,
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): M C I f� Let: 3Gi° q l'tt, is 1, �� Long: z 3 'f , `� �� Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:(✓r,` f/&v',�"I `` � P-)fEC"-tj5*F NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soij or Hydrology �signiffuntly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes N
Are Vegetation . Soli , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
C1 taaaaeoV nc FIwnlNts _ Attach site tnao shOWInO sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes _L No
Yes �_ No
is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes , _. No
Pr
Hydric Soil esent?
check air that aMW
- that
0( e�
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surfac
(B8)
Remarks: _. - ~ rJf�' /��' s'i `y✓� ✓ Jlrf'
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
/'5 72 fiI �'
f'y f.'i`� 1 If
Saturation (A3)
17 1�flll
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
wynond n[w
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
SecQW0Indicators
I�.tM ing i at (minim �n of Me is' MWred
a - -
check air that aMW
- that
0( e�
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
rlallalY 111V.aa_
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Planus (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surfac
(B8)
,�. High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
Saturation (A3)
-,_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on L'nirig Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment DeposiV. (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
;K Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery
C9)
_
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_. Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (89)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
J/
Surface Water Present? Yes' No
Depth (inches): g -
Water Table Present? Yes i<, No
Depth (inches):'214/1'
Saturation Present? Yes, X No
Depth (inches):= . j--' ---
es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes/'L
lincludes ca
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
T.���,%icy-r� �r>�,it�
�✓�= I..�"
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - V on 2.0

..r..cTwTrnw rc:..e crratsl - I lea eciantific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size / r ) v r ? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. �'�>t i T ! ��I �` =; �i'�U�
That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC:
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4•
Percent of Dominant species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of. Muldgb by:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 -
Saoix•w Stratum (Plot size: }
7! F f , tc r r ;/J!' r' `.,
2-
FACW species X2-
1. f'"
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3•
UPL species X5-
5=4.
4.
Coltm n Totals: (A)
(B)
5.
6
Prevalence Index = B/A -
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
L�5 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size. }
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 • Prevalence Index is 53.0'
1
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide su
rting
2
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
3
_ Problematic Hydrophy is Vegetation' (Expl
in)
4.
5•
'Indicators of hydric sal and wetland hydrology
must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
• Total Cover
Deflnitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 it (6 m) or more in height and
height
3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast (I)BH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vine
i,
r�
2.
3. 6I Ips e.{ i ; � '; ` r.'Y, r(t )et 46,,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and
than 3 In. (7.6 cm) DBH.
less
,�f�U� (
4
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5.
approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
6
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, Inc
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woo
plants, except woody vines, less than approxin
Aft
y
Btely 3
8
9.
It (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - Ail woody vines, regardless of t
mght-
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
• Total Cover
Vada,
X
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Present? Yes , No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Verson 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to document the indicator or
DepthMatrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moi. �_� (moistL—-- .— Texture
t�-
Sampling Point:
t . %o-111——w.-wo..w..--....... ..... ..---'---
Hydric soil I ndicators:
- --- -
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
Histosol (At) _urface
Dark S (S7)
_ 2 an Muck (A10) (MCRA 147)
_
Hisdc Epipedon (A2) —
Polyvalue Below Surface (SS) (MCRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A76)
_
Black H� (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
_
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soles (F19)
_
— Ye (trix
Stratified
Muck (A10)(LRR N) _
(F
Redox DarkStrface (F6)
RA 136,147)
._, Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _
Redox Depressions (F8)
_
_ Sandy Murky Mineral (Si) (L.RR N. _
iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) OMLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation
and
_
Sandy Redox (SS)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present
_
SvIpW Matrix (S6) _„-
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problemadC.
Type:
Depth (inches):
US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydric Soil Present? Yes. No
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SITE PHOTOS AUGUST 3, 2017
Wetlands and Stream Determination — Cedar Lake Road
Chatham County, North Carolina
Photograph No. 1: Data Point 1 in upstream lake bed.
Photograph No. 2: Wetlands on upstream side up to toe of slope at breach.
ANPROJECT NO. STULTS1701 MTC

SITE PHOTOS AUGUST 3, 2017
Wetlands and Stream Determination — Cedar Lake Road
Chatham County, North Carolina
Photograph No. 3: Wetlands and stream downstream of breach and dam.
Photograph No. 4: Looking upstream to breach in dam.
PROJECT NO. STULTS1701 ATC

Date: _September 25, 2017
Agent Authorization & Permission to Enter Property for the
594 Cedar Lake Road
Chatham County, NC. Pin # 0002606
as shown on the attached map.
End of Cedar Lake Road,
Chatham County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter serves as authorization for Benjamin V. Wilson, PE of ATC to act as agent on
behalf of the owner for wetlands and stream delineation and permitting only, and to
authorize personnel from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality and the
US Army Corp of Engineers to enter the above referenced properties for the purpose of
confirming the location of streams and wetlands information contained in the wetlands and
stream determination report for the above referenced site only.
Respectfully, 144 R4ZWI
5.* 95
OWNER: J
Name: _ Andrew Stults
Title:
Address: 116 Fearrington Post
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Signed:
Cell - 919.423.0225
/ �� • / / /
/' t
Attachment: Location Map — 594 Cedar lake Road

Lowes',Foods
ir Q 4 [ +
ams Cir _ Of Chapel Hill W �(
as —
Google",
P.""v" a
Ott$p, LOnn
!%re Foal Map data 921097 Google United States Terms Send Seedback S0O k L .�