20160689 Ver 1_401 Application_20160716

' oma+ of warFq .
\pG - Office Use Only:
I I ;
20 1 6 0 6 8 8 Corps action ID noCtPAI
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit El 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? i
❑ Yes ❑X 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
le. Is this notification solely for the record-
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes Q No
For the record only for Corps Permit.
❑ Yes Q No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
Yes ❑ No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
Yes,❑Q 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:
Grantham Subdivision Phases 1-4
2b. County.
Cabarrus
2c. Nearest municipality / town.
Harrisburg
2d. Subdivision name:
Grantham
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information 2016
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Avanti Properties Group; Inc. `
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
Book 68 Page 49 �.wA FR RE RMI NG
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable).
Shawn Santee 401
-
3d. Street address:
11535 Carmel Commons Blvd., Ste 101
3e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC, 28226
3f. Telephone no.:
704-400-4284
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
i

Due to the location/extent of jurisdictional features bisecting the site, complete avoidance was
not practicable as the location of the streams and wetland traverse the entirety of the project
boundaries. Bottomless culverts/spans were evaluated but not considered practicable due to
substantial additional costs. Also due to the site constraints of connecting to existing road
infrastructure, the mandatory location of the crossings on the stream and wetlands reduced
minimization opportunities. Ultimately, the road crossings were designed the minimum width
necessary to safely facilitate traffic flow and are considered minimal impacts. In order to
compensate for the proposed impacts, the applicant is proposing payment into N.C. Division
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) at a 1:1 ratio for 275.2 linear feet of cool water stream channel
and 0.22 acres of non -riparian wetlands. Enclosed is the request for mitigation submitted to
NCDMS. We have checked with NCDMS and was informed that they would likely accept this
request.
Also enclosed is a copy of our Threatened/Endangered Species request of Concurrence for
Section 7 Clearance and our report addressing Schweinitz's sunflower. Based upon known
occurrences for federally listed species in Cabarrus County and their habitat requirements, we
believe this project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species. Concurrence will
be obtained from USFWS prior to the start of any construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information and please contact us if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Mogensen, President
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
Authorized Agent for Avanti Properties Group, Inc.
Cc:
Mitch Latham, Latham -Walters Engineering, Inc.
Shawn Santee, Agent for Avanti Properties Group, Inc.
Jerry Tannenbaum, Avanti Properties Group, Inc.

NM
MOGENSEN MITIGATION. INC
June 29, 2016
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. Alan Johnson NCDENR
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ms. Karen Higgins NCDENR
Division of Water Resources
Wetlands & Storm Water Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification for NWP #14 and NWP#29 Grantham Subdivision
Phases 1-4, Cabarrus Co., NC.
Dear Ms. Higgins and Messrs. Elliott, Johnson and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for permits associated with the construction of Phases 1-4 of the Grantham
residential development located at approximately 8235 Appaloosa Lane, Harrisburg, in Cabarrus
County NC.
The jurisdictional features on the site were delineated by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc (MMI) and
field -verified by William Elliott (USACE) and Alan Johnson (DEQ-DWR) on December 10,
2015. Proposed permanent impacts associated with this phase of the project total approximately
275.2 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.22 acres of forested wetland impacts. The impacts
being proposed under NWP #14 are associated with two road crossings, and NWP # 29 for BMP
construction and residential lot clearing.
The current site plan was designed to avoid jurisdictional features to the maximum extent
practicable while still incorporating necessary site development and viable access/connectivity.

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 -
BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder F1 Assign Action ID Number in ORM FI
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Grantham
2. Work Type: Private F71 Institutional Government El Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 63d and 133e]:
Residential development and road connector.
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Avanti Properties Group, Inc.
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 65b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 61b]:
35.1689N, -80.7509W; 1717 Woodberry Road, Charlotte, NC 28212
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 61a]:
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Cabarrus
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Harrisburg
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 62a]: Goose Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 62c]: 03040105 Rocky
Authorization: Section 10 F-1 Section 404 a Section 10 & 404 11
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 29
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Richard K. Mogensen
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
5c. Street address.
P.O. Box 690429
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC, 28227
5e. Telephone no.:
704-576-1111
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
5505-67-2161
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.2663 Longitude: -80.6485
1 c. Property size:
180.22 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Reedy Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c. River basin:
Yadkin 03040105
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is currently vacant and consists of undeveloped forested land with some open pasture. General land use in the vicinity is primarily residential
with some light agricultural use (e g. equestrian facilities) nearby.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.97
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 12,234
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Construction of residential (single -family) development including road crossings, lot fill, & sewer lines
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Excavation and grading of the site will use standard equipment - excavator, dump trucks, track hoe, etc.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project(including all priorphases) in thepast?
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: See attached
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑X Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Rich Mogensen
Agency/Consultant Company: Mogensen Mitigation, Inc
Other.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Jurisdictional determinations were field-verified by Alan Johnson (NCDEQ) and William Elliot (USAGE) on 12/10/2015.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
Q Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, explain.
The project will be developed in four phases over several years, with each phase comprising a different section of the overall subdivided neighborhood
All of the cumulative impacts resulting from the entire project (all phases) are described here
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands Q 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 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
-
01
W2 T
Type In (Other)Sewer
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
001
W3 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
004
W4 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
001
W5 P
Type In (Other)BMP
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
003
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.22
2h. Comments:
Several lots were eliminated from initial plans in order to minimize wetland impacts,
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
Stream A (unnamed)
PER
3
1154
S2 P
Culvert
Stream B (unnamed)
PER
-
3
1598
S3
Choose one
_
S4
Choose one
-
S5 -
Choose one
_
S6
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
275.2
3i. Comments:
Every reasonable effort has been made to minimize stream impacts
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.-\
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
type
Temporary T
\
01 -
` Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: -
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d. 5e.
Pond ID number
Proposed use or
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
purpose of pond
(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.
6c.
6d. —
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer Impact
Reason for impact
Stream name
Buffer
Zone 1
Zone 2
number —
mitigation
impact
impact
Permanent (P) or
required?
(square
(square
Temporary T
feet)
feet
131 -
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
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts In designing project.
Site utilization was designed to avoid encroachment on the majority of existing wetlands and streams on site but rather include them in undeveloped
greenway areas Where impacts were unavoidable, design for the residential lots and roadway access were oriented and located to limit additional fill
to onsite wetlands and streams while maintaining required development lots and access/egress requirements Several lots were eliminated to minimize
wetland impacts
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize impacts to onsite or adjacent offsite receiving
conveyances All jurisdictional areas will be flagged prior to construction so they will not be inadvertently disturbed
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?
X❑ Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply).
Q DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑X 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:
275.2 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
warm
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only).
0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.22 acres
4f Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h. Comments: A 1 1 mitigation ration is being sought due to the degraded quality of on site steams however final ratios are TBD by USACE
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 OX 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:
0 Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
23.62%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
0 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:
Storm water will be addressed through the installation of BMP's as shown on the site plans This plan is in compliance with the Town of Harrisburg
storm water rules and is currently under review. See attached letter from LWE for additional details
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Town of Harrisburg
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Town of Harrisburg
0 Phase 11
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply).
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
El Yes ❑X 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 0 No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑X Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
0 Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
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
❑ 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
t
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
E] Yes
Q No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
El Yes
X❑ No
2c. If you answered 'yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No additional phases are proposed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via sewer lines
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑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?
A threatened and endangered species assessment was conducted on the site as part of the stream and wetland assessment. No Federally protected
species or critical habitats were identified. Byron Hamstead, USFWS, visited the site on 6-13-16 See attached correspondence
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?
No essential fish habitat in this region
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 Q 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?
SHPO's website: http Hgis ncdcr gov/hpoweb/ A concurrence request letter has been sent - see attached correspondence.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
0 Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The developer is working closely with the Josh Watkins, the Harrisburg FEMA Floodplain Administrator, to ensure all activities meet FEMA
requirements Design and construction activities have been planned such that "No Net Fill" will be deposited in the 100 -yr floodplain Please see
attached LWE letter for additional details
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
http //gis cabarruscounty us/mycabarrusgis/
Richard K SNmYR bKMopns �M°°`^`°^
Richard K Mogensen
= P -d ^«m a ®Mmmd
m
Mogensen Dam 20160821123815-0{100
06-29-2016
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

November 17, 2015
Mr. William Elliott
Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5008
RE: Reedy Creek Crossing Subdivision, Harrisburg, Cabarrus & Mecklenburg Counties, NC
Dear Mr. Elliott:
Richard K. Mogensen, PWS of Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. is acting as my Agent for the site visit
and permitting of the Reedy Creek Crossing Subdivision. A wetland and stream delineation was
submitted on November 13, 2015.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
Sincerely,
'al 6
Ed Goodwin
C/O Avanti Properties Group, Inc.

MidgaHon Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 28, 2016
Shawn Santee
Avanti Properties Group, Inc.
11535 Carmel Commons Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28226
Project: Grantham SD Phases 1-4
PAT MCCRORY
('01, 1110)
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Expiration of Acceptance: December 28, 2016
County: Cabarrus
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the
table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation
program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must
also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with
the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and
payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an
applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at http://portal.ncdenr orglweb/eep
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts that may require
compensatory mitigation are summarized In the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned
to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
Impact
River
Basin
CU Location Stream (feet} Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer II
(8 -digit HUC) —7 (Sq. Ft) (Sq. Ft )
Cold Cool Warm Rip avian Non -Riparian Coastal Marsh
Yadkin
03040105 0 1 0 1 Up to 276 0.22 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation
will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC
02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
1-
JamTs BStanfill
Asseanagement Supervisor,
cc. William Elliott/David Shaeffer, USACE- Asheville
Rich Mogensen, agent
State of North Carolina , Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W Jones Stmt, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

' a}_ 30NMinisia
s
Wd3aUS V GNVIAM o o
i6l
9L09Z ON'�sweswvw cjvoH HounHO NOSN1130H d k h
Z -L 3SVHd NOISIAloanS WVHINHMJ
®v
ol
It
I ,
i
- i
01
�♦ � ` / q .I � ®y a `��5�$A�fii,
S 4—
r
®M �S✓ `,•i ® .p /� ! / � 4 �� � yy Epi ®� q�^ gggg
WMI
®4 r �� ��; gg}e
/ I /
IF
IN
ONO

O
Q
b
I
0
a
Q
S
�o2U
owf
wmoo
g z
� to
_;
F- v
W
m
_U
�
327 66'
5 06'47'13, E
Im�
t
P9 LZ9
LLZ9
aQ
�O
2�
9z 909 inn ANI
99 609 ( d 3 Q) H/d
ZO 00 V15
F 9Z9
l—MH
£ 9Z9
1
QM
V -►-- N
m -- — - -
_
0! 9Z9
1909
-
�
I
a 1:
0
9 609
((d)I-MH) 99 e'9 NI ANI
9679
IiI
66 M(p3 ®) W2I
Zjj 88+0 V15
(d)0 -MH
O FZ9
6 FZ9
U
j o
6 FZ9
6 FZ9
Q �
0
0 e
c ti
ti
4-
I
b
S
Q
W
Q c
0
a
Q
S
�o2U
owf
wmoo
g z
� to
_;
F- v
W
e
_U
�
327 66'
5 06'47'13, E
N Ij
-c
\ Ln
N
1 -+
Avx'JIWnd,09
XQ77b7DWd + +
+ _
+ + w2;,—
ti +
F -
i
O 1

1
I
I I
lin
b
m
`NO
<Y
a
ky
I
o
N
�IN
N
I`
tY
♦ 1
S!�
W
C -
Y
J
I
a
U�
m
0 o
-
a¢
ax
2e
i
ZL 419 1 nO
ANI
> 919
96819 (d3 ®)
Wk!
IF9C+1
d15
(0)
-MH
— _
61C 1F9
L 919
- —
- - ----
O
2
0
J
4
�
6 FF9
O
0 619
n
ONgpbr0
I
II
dObd
((0)l
H) 61 Z/9 N/ ANI
\
""'):Sl
_ — -
4Z'9/9
S 919
- -- - —
S1 Z6+0
—
(0)0 -MH
0
z
0
LQ
b 119
e �
ti
- ~
t
b
b
i
1
I
I I
lin
L
m
<Y
a
ky
I
o
N
�IN
N
I`
tY
♦ 1
S!�
lin
L
m
' W
O
a
ky
o
N
I`
S!�
C -
Y
s
a
U�
0 o
-

Tl
a /
/
1
0
Zmw
o�W
�w
Ln
0
/ rn�am
m �Im /
a /m z /
1
i

LATHAM-WALTERS ENGINEERING, INC.
16507-A NORTHCROSS DRIVE
HUNTERSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28078
iff
June 20, 2016
Robinson Church Road
Harrisburg, NC 28075
Cabarrus County
Project number: 2015.10
Project name: Grantham Subdivision
Subject: Wetland & Stream Disturbance
Grantham Subdivision is located off Robinson Church Road between I-485 and Rocky River Road in Cabar-
rus County. This subdivision consists of 259 lots with a minimum lot size of 0.34 acres and typical lot dimen-
sions of 90'x167'. The total site area of this project is approximately 180.22 acres with a Built -Upon -Area of
23.62%. The total impact area for wetlands is 0.216 acres, and the total impact linear footage for streams is
275.01 feet.
Our stormwater management plan consist of structural BMPs designed to treat stormwater from the first one
(1) inch of rain and have minimum of 85% average annual removal for Total Suspended Solids. Each storm -
water system collecting runoff from on-site outfalls into a water quality basin. Cross drainage systems were
designed to redirect incoming natural stormwater from off-site. All stormwater management systems were
designed to meet the requirements set forth in The Stormwater Ordinance of the Town of Harrisburg.
Site development (impervious area, grading, etc...) required us to fill within the 100 year floodplain. How-
ever, FEMA states that "No Net Fill" will be allowed within the 100 year floodplain. In order satisfy this
limitation, additional grading was designed within the floodplain to fulfill the requirement.
All designs and calculations were applied by the Town of Harrisburg Unified Development Ordinance & NC
Department of Transportation Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards.
All work presented were designed to the best of our knowledge. If further information is required, please
contact us at your earliest convenience.
Carlos Lee Ruano
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

DI-v'OBINKSON CHURCH ROAD SITE
Town of Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Stream & Wetland Delineation Report
4-10-15
PREPARED FOR: Avanti Acquisition Company, LLC
923 NORTH PENNSYLVANIA AVE.
WINTER PARK, FL 32789
PREPARED BY: MOGENSEN MITIGATION. INC.
PO Box 690429
CHARLOTTE, NC 28227

Table of Contents
Section
Section 1.0 Introduction
Section 2.0 Methodology
2.1. Vegetation
2.2. Soils
2.3 Hydrophytic Indicators
Section 3.0 Site Description
Section 4.0 Results
Section 5.0 Development Potential and Mitigation Options
Section 6.0 Conclusions
Section 7.0 Qualifications
Section 8.0 References
List of Graphics
Figures 1-6
Photo Log
Wetland Determination Data Forms
Original Development Plan Prepared by Latham & Walters Engineering, Inc.
NCDENR Stream Forms
2
Page
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
8
8
8
9
9

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI) was retained by Avanti Acquisition Company. LLC
(Avanti) via Services Agreement dated March 9, 2015 to prepare a jurisdictional stream
and wetland delineation on a 190 -acre site in the Town of Harrisburg, Cabarrus County,
NC off Robinson Church Road (Site). The purpose of the stream and wetland delineation
report is to identify, flag and survey the jurisdictional streams and/or wetlands on a 190 -
acre parcel in preparation for a subdivision development. On March 3, 2015, MMI
delineated and flagged the stream and wetland boundaries. The boundary between
upland and jurisdictional streams and wetlands was marked with orange flagging tape,
numbered and surveyed with a GPS unit which has sub -meter accuracy.
The site is bounded by Robinson Church Road on the east, Appaloosa Lane on the
south and undeveloped wooded land on the north and west. The site is currently
forested and contains Reedy Creek, several tributaries and several distinct wetlands.

This stream and wetland delineation report is based on a review of topographic survey
mapping and development plans prepared by Latham & Walters Engineering, Inc. dated
December 31, 2014, review of National Wetland Inventory maps and the USDA Soil
Survey of Cabarrus County (see all attached graphics), and on-site evaluation by
professional environmental scientist Richard Mogensen, PWS on March 11 through
March 15th 2015. This report includes a GPS -based map of the wetland boundaries and
stream limits which was provided to Latham & Walters, Engineering, Inc.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Wetland delineations were made in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Corps Manual) and the State of North Carolina's
isolated wetlands rules. These manuals generally follow a three -parameter approach to
making wetland delineations: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and hydrologic indicators.
All three parameters normally must be present for an area to be considered a wetland under
Section 40411 of the Clean Water Act. For streams the presence of an Ordinary High Water
Mark is the key criteria to determine jurisdiction.
Although procedures for making the determinations are standardized, judgments are
sometimes required, depending on the strength or weakness of any of the three parameters.
In addition, transition areas between uplands and wetlands often exist, also requiring
judgments as to the boundaries. Therefore, some adjustments to the boundaries may occur
during a field review with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), NC Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and other commenting agencies.
Wetlands were classified according to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (1979). This is the standard
system of wetland classification used by most state and federal agencies.
2.1 Vegetation
Plant species observed at the site were identified and the wetland indicator status for
each species was determined from the National List of Plant Species That Occur in
Wetlands (Region Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain). The indicator status notes the
percentage of probability that the plant would occur in a wetland. The following are the
indicator status designations:
OBL — Obligate Wetland (> 99% probability)
FACW — Facultative Wetland (>66% probability)
FAC — Facultative (33% to 66% probability)
FACU — Facultative Upland (1 % to 3% probability)
2.2 Soils
A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor hydrophytic vegetation. A
hydric soil may either be drained or undrained, although a drained hydric soil may not
continue to support wetland plants. According to the 1987 Corps Manual, only when a
hydric soil supports hydrophytic vegetation and the area has indicators of wetland
hydrology may the soil be referred to as a wetland soil.
4

During this investigation, soil cores were taken, generally to a depth of 18 inches to
determine whether or not wetland soils are present. Soil characteristics that were
checked include composition, texture, color, chroma, value, odor and moisture regime of
the soil. These characteristics are determined in the absence of direct sunlight and with
a moistened sample. The "Munsell Soil Color Chart" is used to determine color and
chroma.
2.3 Hydrophytic Indicators
According to the 1987 Corps Manual, an area must be periodically inundated or have
saturated soils for a significant period of time during the growing season, typically
between 5 and 12% of the growing season. Hydrologic indicators include, but are not
limited to, blackened water, stained leaves, visual inundation, drift lines and hummocks,
and wetland drainage patterns.
Hydrological characteristics observed on the site were noted during the field
investigation and are listed on the attached Wetland Data -Forms.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Site is approximately 190 acres of
undeveloped woodlands bisected by
Reedy Creek and a utility easement
(sewer). It is located primarily along
Robinson Church Road and Appaloosa
Lane in the Town of Harrisburg, Cabarrus
County, North Carolina. It is owned by the
Avanti Acquisition Company, LLC and is
made up of several parcels. It is
bounded by Robinson Church Road,
Appaloosa Lane and wooded land. The
Site includes uplands & palustrine,
forested, wetlands and four unnamed
tributaries to Reedy Creek. A relatively
large flood plain associated with Reddy
Creek is included in the Site. All of the
wetlands with the exception of on small
riparian area (W-5) are located within the
100 -floodplain. The site drains to the
Yadkin River which is considered
navigable. Therefore the wetlands have a
significant nexus to a navigable water
and are, therefore, considered
jurisdictional. The tributaries range from
perennial (constant flow year round) to
ephemeral (flows during and soon after a
rain event only).
5

4.0 RESULTS
The Site contains five distinct wetland areas (W-1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) and four distinct unnamed
tributaries (UT -1, 2, 3, 4) to Reedy Creek. All are shown on the attached delineation
map. MMI completed field data forms for two distinct wetland types called Data Point's
(DP #1 & 2) during the site visit. DP #1 was at W-1 in forested floodplain wetlands to
Reedy Creek. The wetlands at W-2, 3 & 4 were in the some landscape position and
contained the same vegetation and soils. Therefore, the Data Form #1 can be used for
W-1, 2, 3 & 4. DP #2 was located at W-5 along the small floodplain wetland associated
with UT #1. It was in a different landscape position from W-1, 2, 3 & 4 with different
vegetation and soils. Each wetland area was flagged with orange survey tape, numbered
and mapped.
WETLANDS
DP #1 (W-1, 2, 3, 4) are forested wetlands which are located within the floodplain to
Reedy Creek on both east and west portions of the Site (see the attached Wetland
Delineation Map). The soils at DP #1 are mapped as Chewacla sandy loam (ChA) and
are frequently flooded with 2 percent slopes. They are a typical floodplain soil in the
piedmont of NC and can be considered hydric depending on the frequency and duration
of inundation. The soils present are considered hydric and due the surface inundation
would also be considered a "wetland soil". Therefore the hydric soil parameter is
present. The vegetation is hydrophytic and is dominated by typical piedmont bottomland
hardwood trees and shrubs including red maple, green ash, sycamore, American Elm,
sweetgum, black gum and loblolly pine. For a complete list of vegetation and site details
please refer to the attached Wetland Determination Data Form (DP #1). The Cowardin
Classification for the forested wetlands at DP #1 is Paiustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved
Deciduous, Temporarily flooded (PFO1A).
DP #2 (W-5) are forested wetlands located a thousand feet upstream of the Reedy
Creek floodplain. These wetlands are immediately adjacent to UT #1 and are less than
one acre in size. The soils are mapped Chewacla sandy loam which have a hydric
phase as noted above. It is more likely that this small floodplain wetland has inclusions
of another hydric soil unit as the characteristics are somewhat different than the soils in
the floodplain along Reedy Creek at W-1 - 4. The soils look more like inclusions of
Wehadke (WerA) which are very dark in color and saturated to the surface. This area is
dominated by silky dogwood, northern arrow -wood, red maple and American holly. For
a complete list of vegetation and site details please refer to the attached Wetland
Determination Data Form (DP #2). The Cowardin Classification for the forested
wetlands at DP #2 is Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally flooded
(PFO1 B).
6

STREAMS
The Site contains the third order Reedy Creek and four (4) distinct tributaries noted as
UT's #1, 2, 3, 4) on the attached delineation map. UT #1 is a perennial second order
tributary which drains to Reedy Creek. UT #2 & #3 drain to UT #1 before it drains to
Reedy Creek. UT #4 drains directly to Reedy Creek. UT #1-3 are perennial, jurisdictional
streams and score out at least 30 points on the NCDENR stream forms. UT #4 has
many of the characteristics of jurisdictional streams including an Ordinary High Water
Mark, which is the key criteria for determining whether a stream is jurisdictional. UT #4 is
an intermittent stream along the lower reaches and ephemeral in the upper reaches. UT
#4 scores 19 points on the NCDENR stream forms, and therefore, may or may not be
jurisdictional. Due to the uncertainty and the significance (associated riparian buffers) of
this drainage channel being jurisdictional, we strongly recommend that we take the
Corps, and/or a representative from NCDENR to the site for preliminary jurisdictional
determinations on this two drainage channels. Once jurisdictional limits have been
determined on this drainage channel, the project impacts can be better defined and
mitigation amounts can be determined.
NOTE: Another drainage ditch is present just to the north of UT #4 which has not been
included in this report but does exhibit some stream characteristics. It scored lower than
19 on the NCDENR stream forms and therefore was left off this report. It is possible that
the Corps and/or NCDENR could take jurisdiction on the short drainage feature.
However, it is our opinion that it should not be considered a jurisdictional stream as it
appears to be an artificial ditch installed for previous farming activities in an upland. All
stream forms will be included as an attachment to this report when available.
FLAGGING
The wetland areas have been flagged at the upland/wetland boundary with bright orange
survey flagging tape and each flag has been given an alpha/numeric designation.
Wetlands located in the area are marked W-1 (#1, #2, #3 etc.). We have surveyed these
locations with a GPS Unit (Trimble 5000 Hand-held Unit) and have created a final
wetland delineation map (see attached map) which can be used for planning and
permitting purposes.
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPS
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps indicate one large emergent wetland on the
Site (copy attached). The NWI maps were made from interpreting aerial photography
and are often not very accurate. Because these maps were created decades ago, field
studies are always more reliable and dependable.
SOILS MAPS
The Cabarrus County Web -based Soil Survey was consulted to determine the soil types
present at the site, particularly in the floodplain and potential wetland areas. The soil
maps indicate Chewacla sandy loam and a copy of the soil survey is attached.
7

5.0 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
If fill will be placed in any of the wetland areas, a US Army Corps of Engineers Section
404 Clean Water Act permit and NCDENR Section 401 Water Quality Certification
and/or state wetlands permit authorization may be required. Adherence to state and
local water quality standards and procedures are also required as part of the permit
process. Other local water quality and/or stormwater authorizations may be required due
to the site's proximity to the navigable Reedy Creek. If the project's impacts exceed
North Carolina thresholds (0.10 acre for wetlands and 150 linear feet for streams),
compensatory mitigation may be required.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The Site does contain jurisdictional streams and wetlands that drain to Reedy Creek
which is tributary to the Yadkin River. These streams and forested wetlands are
dominated by native bottomland hardwood trees and shrubs including red maple, green
ash, sweetgum, sycamore, silky dogwood, spicebush, northern arrow -wood. For a
complete list of vegetation refer to the attached Wetland Determination Data Forms. The
wetlands, streams and Reedy Creek have all been flagged and surveyed. Two drainage
channels are questionable regarding whether they are jurisdictional and where
jurisdiction ends. One has been included (UT #4) in this report and one has not. This is
subject to final confirmation by the state and/or federal agencies. The best way to
determine whether these channels are jurisdictional is to bring one or both of the primary
regulatory agencies to the site for a "determination call". We can begin that process
immediately if requested.
7.0 QUALIFICATIONS
Richard Mogensen, PWS holds degrees in Biology from the University of Connecticut
(1977) and Geology from the University of Colorado at Denver (1984). He is certified as
a Professional, Wetla nd Scientist (PWS) by the Society of Wetland Scientists and is also
provisionally certified as a Wetland Delineator by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District. Mr. Mogensen has attended and taught at numerous wetland training
classes and programs: He has over 20 years of experience in wetland consulting and
mitigation.

8.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. Laroe. December 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
& Wildlife Service. Office of Biological Services. Washington, D.C. 47pp
Environmental laboratory 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Reed, P.B. Jr. March 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast
(Region 2). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biol. Report 88(26.1)
U.S Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. December 1987.
Hydric Soils of the United States. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
Washington, D.C.
GIS Soil Mapping of Cabarrus County.
US Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service, Field Guide to Non -tidal Wetland
Identification & NWI Maps
LIST OF GRAPHICS
Figure 1 - Location Map
Figure 2 - USGS Quad Map
Figure 3 — Site Development Plan (prepared by Latham & Walters, Engineering)
Figure 4 - Soils Survey of Cabarrus County
Figure 5 — NWI Map
Figure 6 - Jurisdictional Waters of the US (including wetlands)
9
F-1

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjecVSite Robinson Church Road Site City/County Harrisburg/Cabarrus
Applicant/Owner Avanti Properties State NC
Investigator(s), R. Mogensen Section, Township, Range -
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)• MLRA 136 Lat. 35.265239 N Long 80 657398 W
Sampling Date: 3/11 /2015
— Sampling Poing Wet 1
_ Slope (%)
Datum
<1%
Soil Map Unit Name ChA Chewacla sandy loam NWI classification.
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation ' , Soil - , or Hydrology - significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes F7-] No
Are Vegetation Sod - or Hydrology - naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No = Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes 0 No= within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No =
Remarks
This wetland point serves as a representative data point for Wetlands 2, 3 and 4. Wetland in
floodplain of Reedy Creek adjacent to sewer line ROW. PF01A with adjacent linear open water
feature.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
[�Surface Sod Cracks (136)
E::kparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
=Surface
Water (Al) =True Aquatic Plants (1314)
=High
Water Table (A2)
=Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
E::]Dramage Patterns (610)
=Saturation
(A3)
Marks (131)
=Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
=Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Moss Trim Lines (B16)
=Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
=Water
=Sediment
Deposits (B2)
=Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
=Crayfish Burrows (C8)
=Drift
Deposits (133)
=Thin Muck Surface (C7)
[Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal
Mat or Crust (134)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron
Deposits (135)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation
Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
=Shallow Agwtard (D3)
=Water
-Stained Leaves (139)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic
Fauna (1313)
=FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches). 3-6°
Water Table Present? Yes ✓Q
No= Depth (inches). surface
Saturation Present? Yes ✓Q
No= Depth (inches) Surface
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Standing water in vernal pool wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont.— Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Wet 1
Tree Stratum (Plot size* 30' )
1 Acer rubrum
Absolute
% Cover
20
Dominant Indicator
SDecies? Status
Y FAC
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6
(A)
2 Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3 Ulmus amencana
12
N
FACW
Species Across All Strata 6
(B)
4 Platanus occidentalis
10
N
FACW
Juin eros vi i
5 p �niana
5
N
FACU
Percent of Dominant Species o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100 /o
(A/g)
6 Pmustaeda
5
N
FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7 Lidodendron tulipifera 3 N FACU
70
Total % Cover of Multiply by.
= Total Cover
Sapling Stratum (Plot size. 30'
OBL species x 1 =
1 Carpmus caroliniana
8
Y
FAC
FACW species x2=
2
FAC species x3=
3
FACU species x4=
4
UPL species x 5 =
5
Column Totals (A)
(B)
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
8 = Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30'
1
2
3
4
6
7
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Juncus effusus 10 Y FACW
2 Carex sp 15 Y
3 Dichanthehum clandestmum 15 Y FAC
4
5.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
40 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30' )
1 Lonicera japonica 15 Y FAC
2 Vitus sp. 10 Y
3
25 = Total Cover
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
U1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
02 - Dominance Test is >50%
Q3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
Q4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
OProbiematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
(7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
it (1 m) in height
Woody vine — Ali woody vines, regardless of height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes= No=
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point, Wet 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 7.5YR 4/3 100 Silt
6-12 10YR 5/2 100 Silt
'Type C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matnx
Hydric Soil Indicators:
=Histosol (Al)
=Dark Surface
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
=2 Muck 147)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
(S7)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
cm (A10) (MLRA
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
=Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
=Redox Depressions (F8)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4)
MLRA 136)
=Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
=Red Parent Material (1721) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓= No
Remarks
Marginal hydric soils.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Robinson Church Road Site • Hamsbu /Cabarrus 3/11 /2015
Project/Site: City/County. � Sampling Date:
Aoplicant/Owner. Avanb Properties State NC Sampling Point Wet 5
Investigator(s) R Mogensen Section, Township, Range
floodplain o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc). p Local relief (concave, convex, none) Slope (%)• 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat 35 266837 N Long 80 649493 W Datum
Sod Map Unit Name VaB Vance sandy loam
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation ' Sod ' or Hydrology " significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation ' Sod ' or Hydrology ' naturally problematic?
NWI classification
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes= No=
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes= No = within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No
Remarks
Forested floodplain to UT to Reedy Creek. Downstream of confluence of UT1 and UT2.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
[:]surface Sod Cracks (136)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aooly)
F71Surface Water (A1)
=True Aquatic Plants (1314)
=1sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
=High Water Table (A2)
=Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
=Drainage Patterns (610)
=Saturation (A3)
=Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) =Moss Trim Lines (1316)
=Water Marks (131)
=Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment Deposits (132)
=Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
=Crayfish Burrows (C8)
=Drift Deposits (133)
=Thin Muck Surface (C7)
=saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal Mat or Crust (134)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron Deposits (135)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
=Shallow Aquitard (133)
=Water -Stained Leaves (139)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic Fauna (813)
=FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches) 1-2°
Water Table Presents Yes=
No= Depth (inches) surface
EE] No
Saturation Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches)* surface
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
Saturated soil with small ponded areas and obvious drainage patterns.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Wet 5
6
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
20
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 5
(A)
2 Nyssa sylvatica
15
Y
FAC
4
3• Acer rubrum
10
N
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
7
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
•
7'
Species Across All Strata.
(B)
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
N
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
71% �0
2
5 Pinus taeda 10 N FAC
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
(7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(A/B)
6
4
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH
65
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of- Multialy by -
7
Sapling Stratum (Plot size, 30'
1 _
OBL species x 1 =
8
1 Ilex opaca
20
Y
FACU
FACW species x2=
FAC species x 3 =
2 Comus amomum 10 Y FACW
3
10
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
FACU species x4=
4.
12
Woody vine – All wood vines re ardless of hei ht
UPL species x 5 =
5.
Column Totals (A)
(B)
6
7
Prevalence Index = B/A =
30 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30'
01 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 Ligustrum sinense
10 Y FACU
02 - Dominance Test is >50%
2 Viburnum dentatum
10 Y FAC
03 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
3,
04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
4
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
6.
'Indicators of hydric sod and wetland hydrology must
•
7'
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 30' )
20 =Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
1
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
(7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
4
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH
6
7
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
8
g
Herb – All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11
ft (1 m) in height
12
Woody vine – All wood vines re ardless of hei ht
Y 9 9
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Piot size 30' )
1 Lonicera japonica 15 Y FAC
2 Vitus sp 10 Y
3
4 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5 Present? YesF_71 No
25 = Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point* wet 5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 7.5YR 4/3 100 Silt
6-12 10YR 5/2 100 Silt
'Type C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lining, M=Matnx
Hydric Soil Indicators:
=Histosol (Al)
=Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
1:32 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
=Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
=Redox Depressions (F8)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
=Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
=Stnpped Matnx (S6)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yesm No
Remarks
Marginal hydric soils.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

irml
NMI
;Uff MII

r2.
n
M> /
K i
41
'Ar
+art fir..-� YYr t ti ''Fi ° t.• t<<+'.;.
'Y r
a it f r '�^. � •
_ r
ti
r � _
;w L`
T
+r
6�
..-V

y � �`. �_ '�ct � � -- �'�'. ,�.�c _•�_ � *` 'fir ,
�' �' t � ![. _- i � .� � �� _. +a►. - ems'.. -^�ai! � '� ter!" {' �.
ak .

VNIl0HV0 HIHON
l l L l-9LS 0,oz)
:)N!'NOIiMOI LIN'N35N3OOH
A1Nnoo snaavevo
LZZBZ ON'apoPeyp
9lOZ IIJav
noiO saluadoid nuenv
6Zb069X09 Od
.'uope6p,ryN uasua6o
cul
�anaslaa VH =10 Nnno1
LL
311S OVON HOanHO NOSNIBOa
dVW NOIIVOOI
�l I•#J j •'
z
-
N
E
f -��
r. +'
mjam•
.,
LJ
�.f
7.
21
l� ?�
`A 1r•.`1
O
U
-
W
i'j "!
•-_f
:
e i
a
U 1
z c
'z E
ypE
ry
u u
n
—
a
to
P
1
w
W
F�
w. :yN.,t..g:crssr �y
W
ay�A
1► )or,", i44'!>j1
S
Z
co
m
•t
: A
O
ccN
Lo
a
3''i

Stream Reach Evaluation Form
Date:
5/2/2015 Evaluator: T H. Caldwell
Easting: -80.651549
Project:
Robinson Church Road Site Stream 4
Northing: 35.27018
Total Points:
1a.
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
20.0
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
2
A.
Geomorphology
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a.
Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2.
Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3.
In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
1
4.
Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5.
Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
0
6.
Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7.
Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8.
Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9.
Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10.
Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11.
Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes
= 3
0
Geomorphology
Subtotal
11.5
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hvdroloav
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13.
Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16.
Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17.
Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes
= 3
3
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
Hydrology
Subtotal
5.5
C. Bioloav
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0 1
1
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20.
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23.
Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0.75, OBL= 1.5, Other= 0
0
Biology
Subtotal
3.0
* erennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See oacie 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Stream 4 is located within natural, forested valley with large portion of hydrology supplied by
sheet flow from adjacent agricultural/residential properties and groundwater.
I certify that this evaluation conforms to the latest version of
the NCDWQ document entitled Methodology for Identification
Heath Caldwell, MMI
of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins.
Signature of Certified Evaluator
(version 4.11)
❑= =__ a

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 27, 2016
Mr. Richard Mogensen
PO Box 690429
Charlotte, North Carolina 28227
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
Subject: Grantham Residential Development Project; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-16-441
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reviewed the Federally Protected Species Survey
Report dated June 17, 2016 for the project referenced above. Prior to this report Service staff
met with you June 13, 2016, at the proposed project site primarily to evaluate the potential for
suitable habitat for the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). We
submit the following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, your client is applying for a NWP to construct a 260 lot
residential development in Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. The proposed 180 acre
development would be constructed adjacent to Reedy Creek and several unnamed tributaries of
Reedy Creek. An access road would be constructed over Reedy Creek. At the time of your last
correspondence, impacts to streams and wetlands were not detailed or precisely quantified as
project plans were still in development. However, you indicated that the project would result in
more than 150 linear feet of permanent stream impacts and that you would be proposing
purchasing in -lieu fee mitigation at a ]:I mitigation ratio due to the degraded condition of the
streams and wetland to be impacted.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
Suitable summer roosting habitat is present on site for the federally threatened northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16,
2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities that occur

greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known,
occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 ❑July 31). Based on the information
provided, the project (which may require tree clearing) would occur at a location where any
incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule.
❑ou investigated the site for the presence of federally protected species on June 15, 2016. That
field survey of potential suitable habitats revealed no occurrences for federally protected species.
Based on our observations, the reach of Reedy Creek adjacent to the development lacks a defined
thalweg and is composed a substrate dominated by unstable coarse sand. Although a historical
occurrence of Carolina heelsplitter exists in Reedy Creek, instream habitats appear to have
degraded significantly since that time. Moreover, we observed no live or dead evidence of this
species at the time of our investigation.
Since no individuals andlbr their respective suitable habitats were identified in your evaluation
we believe consultation to be complete and require no further action under the Act at this time.
However, please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Mitigation
❑ou propose to utiliEb the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services❑(NCDMS) in -lieu fee
program to mitigate for impacts to stream and wetlands at a 1:1 ratio. However, you have not
indicated that NCDMS has approved a mitigation request at this time. We request that you
provide us with any NCSAM and NCWAM reports that may be available. Typically, we support
a minimum mitigation ratio of 2:1 to ensure that increased development in the area and in the
watershed is sustainable and responsible.
We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting fish and wildlife resources:
Stream Crossings
Bridges or spanning structures should be used for all permanent roadway crossings of streams
(including Reedy Creek) and associated wetlands. Structures should span the channel and the
floodplain in order to minimi a impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic
and terrestrial organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and floodplains.
Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream,
approaches and abutments do not constrict the stream channel, and the crossing is perpendicular
to the stream. Spanning some or all of the floodplain allows the stream to access its floodplain
and dissipate energy during high flows and also provides for terrestrial wildlife passage. When
bank stabili Cktion is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimi Cbd and that a
riprap-free buffer Cone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. If fill in
the floodplain is necessary, floodplain culverts should be added through the fill to allow the
stream access to the floodplain during high flows.

Cff spanning bridges are not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using
bottomless culverts. Bottomless culverts preserve the natural stream substrate, create less
disturbance during construction and provide a more natural post -construction channel. Culverts
should be sufficiently siEbd to mimic natural stream functions and habitats located at the crossing
site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and velocity levels that will permit aquatic organism
passage; and accommodate the movement of debris and bed material during bank -full events.
Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
1� the event that a traditional culvert is the only option, the culvert design should provide for a
minimum water depth in the structure during low-flow[dry periods. Sufficient water depth
should be maintained in all flow regimes so as to accommodate both the upstream and
downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth inside the culvert must be adequate for
fish to be completely immersed and all other aquatic life to move freely. The culvert should be
designed and installed at the same slope as the stream grade to maintain an acceptable water
velocity for aquatic life passage and for stream substrate characteristics to be retained within the
culvert.
Where feasible, we recommend the use of multiple barrels, in addition to a low -flow barrel, to
accommodate flood flows. Floodplain barrels should be placed on or near stream bank -full or
floodplain bench elevation and discharge onto floodplain benches. Where appropriate, install
sills on the upstream end of floodplain barrels to restrict or divert the base stream flow to a single
barrel. If the culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics the existing stream pattern. This will enhance the passage of
aquatic life by: (1) depositing and retaining sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel
depth and flow regimes, and (3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground -disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimiCbd, and existing native vegetation
should be retained (if possible) to maintain riparian cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas
should be revegetated with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is completed.
The proper planning, design, and installation of stream crossings provide year-round passage for
aquatic organisms and preserve healthy streams. We recommend the following website for
additional information regarding stream -crossing activities:
http: //www. stream fsfed. us/fishxing/pointers. html.
Stream Buffers and Floodplains
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants
from reaching streams;
2. enhance the in -stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants;
3

3. act as aponges0by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
5. stabil iEk stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams Cbr the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greaterg
should be created and Or maintained along all aquatic areas. Within the watersheds of streams
supporting endangered aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are
naturally vegetated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation and extend a minimum of
200 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from the banks of
all intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater.)
CMpervious surfaces, ditches, pipes, roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and
other infrastructures that require maintained, cleared rights-of-way and I& compromise the
functions and values of the forested buffers should not occur within these riparian areas.
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies (and their designated nonfederal
representatives) to consider and protect floodplain functions. We believe the examples of
flooding in this area of North Carolina highlight the importance of avoiding the long- and
short-term impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and that we
should avoid any direct or indirect support of floodplain development. Therefore, we do not
believe the subject project should be built in the 100 -year floodplain or in any way result in the
alteration of the 100 -year floodplain.
ftervious SurfacesMow [Mpact Development (L®)
1h addition to the increased storm -water flows caused by the lack of or loss of riparian buffers
and any floodplain development, increased development outside the floodplain will also
contribute to the quantity and quality of storm water entering project area waterways. Recent
studies' have shown that areas of 10- to 20 -percent impervious surface (such as roofs, roads, and
parking lots) double the amount of storm -water runoff compared to natural cover and decrease
deep infiltration (groundwater recharge) by 16 percent. At 35- to 50 -percent impervious surface,
runoff triples, and deep infiltration is decreased by 40 percent. Above 75 -percent impervious
surface, runoff is 5.5 times higher than natural cover, and deep infiltration is decreased by
80 percent. Additionally, the adequate treatment of storm water in development areas is essential
for the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat in developing landscapes. Additionally,
these impervious surfaces collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and
quickly transmit them (via storm -water runoff) to receiving waters. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to
'Federal Iteragency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the United States Government).
Published October 1998, Revised August 2001. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices.
GPO [km No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6[2:EN 3 [PT.653. [SBN-0-934213-59-3.
4

water quality in the United States, posing one of the greatest threats to aquatic life, and is also
linked to chronic and acute illnesses in human populations from exposure through drinking water
and contact recreation.
[hcreased storm -water runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian habitat, causing
stream -bank and stream -channel scouring. 1h addition, impervious surfaces reduce groundwater
recharge, resulting in even lower than expected stream flows during drought periods, which can
induce potentially catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic life. Accordingly, we
recommend that all new developments, regardless of the percentage of impervious surface area
they will create, implement storm -water -retention and -treatment measures designed to replicate
and maintain the hydrograph at the preconstruction condition in order to avoid any additional
impacts to habitat quality within the watershed.
We recommend the use of low -impact -development techniques,z such as reduced road widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for
retaining and treating storm -water runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large
retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce
environmental impacts from residential development.
Where detention ponds are used, storm -water outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior
to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow
for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm -water
surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm -water -control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no
storm -water -control measures or best management practices should be installed within any
stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking Open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimi a changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can
be used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and
store heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeEbFihaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.
'We recommend visiting the Environmental Protection Agency Web site (hyp i/innv epa gov polhrled-runoff-
rront)oint-source-nollculton/urban-i caro f-loiv-nrrpact-development) for additional information and fact sheets
regarding the implementation of low -impact -development techniques.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 8281258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. [a any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-16-441.
Sincerely,
- - 01,1gcnal signed - -
Janet A. Mi m
Field Supervisor
Ec: David Shaeffer, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office

DAM
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC
Endangered Protected/Species Survey
For Grantham Residential Development:
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
By: Heath Caldwell, PWS
June 17, 2016

Grantham Residential Develol)menl -Endangered/Prolected S])ecies Sur ve.v
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located at 4591 Croller Branch Road, Harrisburg, Cabarrus County,
North Carolina. The site can be found on the Harrisburg USGS Topographic ❑uadrangle
Map; latitude is 35.2689 IN, longitude is -80.653 ❑JV. The topography increases
moderately on both sides of Reedy Creek rising from 600 to 670 ft amsl. (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1: Harrisburg USGS Quadrangle
N �..r
Cj, _
• � � •f .,.: 1 .iA`?' r�t.... �.'�.�� ;;`fie _r
UJ .
_ I � `�`1 it 1 •v
- .:Ff e 'rt � 4 �` � � •.11
� .r ^ � �•• rte, ' - r .� �;� ->` ,.Q, J �� -
I
MT
{��jy/ pyyy _ ` — ✓� '�Legend
�. ��-. Ili. il.{.� rFM _ - •r• .� g; ., 1.%,
20001,000 0 2000 (_ QSeeBwndary
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website http:®vww.fws.gov@ndan eg redDvas
referenced to determine the occurrence of Threatened and Endangered species for
Cabarrus County North Carolina (Table 1). Table 1 summari Cks listed [protected species
recogniCbd in Cabarrus County as of April 2, 2015. Maps and aerial photographs were
assembled and the site was investigated on June 15, 2016.
P.O. Box 690429
PAM Charlotte, NC 28227
MOGENSEN MMIC-AnON. INC 704.576.1111p

Grantham Residential Development —Endangered/Protected Species Survey
One plant species with federal protection were included in the survey efforts:
• Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), listed as Federally Endangered,
is typically found in open habitats which historically have been maintained by
wildfires and gra0ng bison and elk herds. Now most occurrences are limited to
roadsides, woodland and field edges, and utility rights-of-way (ROW).
A total of three animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring
in Cabarrus County:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large bodies of open water
such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers, where there are suitable fish
populations and tall trees for nesting and roosting.
• Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally Endangered, is
restricted to cool, clean, well -oxygenated water. Stable, silt- free stream beds
are required for this species. Typically stable areas occur where the stream banks
are well -vegetated with trees and shrubs.
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), listed as Federally
Threatened. During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies
underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and
non -reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines.
m has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds.
Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called
hibemacula.
NM P.O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC 704.576.1111 p

Grantham Residential Development —Endangered/Protected Species Survey
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for Cabarrus County
County: Cabarrus, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Database search performed on June 15, 2016
Group Name Status Lead Office
Clams Carolina heelsplitter Endangered Asheville Ecological
(Lasmiyona decorata) Services Field Office
Flowering Schweinit® sunflower Endangered Asheville Ecological
Plants (Helianthus schweinitzii) Services Field Office
Mammals Northern Long -Eared Bat Threatened Twin Cities Ecological
(Myotis septentrionalis) Services Field Office
RESULTS:
Habitat Descriptions
The site includes uplands ❑ palustrine, forested, wetlands and four unnamed tributaries to
Reedy Creek. A relatively large flood plain associated with Reedy Creek is included in
the Site. A majority of the site consists of forested areas adjacent to the floodplain
associated with Reedy Creek. Maintained agricultural [pasture, mowed fields and
residential parcels are near the western portion of the site. A majority of the surrounding
area is characterilbd by agricultural use properties with some residential areas south and
west of the site.
Forested areas along the Reedy Creek floodplain include a mix of pines, cedars, and
hardwoods with an average diameter at breast height (dbh) of 8 inches and some scattered
larger trees present. Canopy trees include red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciva), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), American elm (Ulmus
Americana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The
subcanopy is composed of sparse species of American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)
and American holly (&x opaca). Dines present are Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), ❑irginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia), Catbrier (Smilax sp.), and Poison Cay (Toxicodendron radicans).
P.O. Box 690429
NM Charlotte, NC 28227
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC 704.576.1111 p

Grantham Residential Development —Endangered/Protected Species Surve},
Endangered/Protected Species Results
• Although limited habitat exists for the Schweinitz's Sunflower along the sewer
line right-of-way and the transitional areas between the grass fields and the
woodline areas, the examination of these provisional areas revealed no
occurrences on-site.
• No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles. No sightings nor were any nesting
sites observed.
• As witnessed, the on-site streambed is covered with sand and silt, severely
embedded and does not provide suitable habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter. No
individuals were observed during USFWS's visual survey nor would any be
expected on-site.
• According to information supplied by USFWS, potential late spring®ummer
habitat exists for the Northern Long- Eared Bat (NLEB) in the mixed woods
areas; therefore, this site may be subject to section 7 and1dr section 9 of the ESA
which may affect tree clearing activities from June 1 through July 31.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Orecommend obtaining concurrence under Section 7 of the ESA from the USFWS prior
to initiating construction.
Respectfully submitted,
e i
❑❑❑❑00�❑
Heath Caldwell, Environmental Scientist
June 15, 2016
DAM P.O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
MOGENSEN MMCAnON. INC 704.576.1111 p

Grantham Residential Development —Endangered/Protected Species Survey
Curriculum Vitae for Heath Caldwell
Education: B.S. Zoology, Miami University
M.S. Environmental Science, The Ohio State University
Mr. Heath Caldwell, PWS, has more than 15 years of experience in environmental
consulting performing natural resources investigations and permitting for
transportation, utility, commercial, residential, institutional, and other infrastructure
facilities. He has managed the preparation of numerous environmental documents
including protected species studies, wetland delineations, Section 404[401 and
related permitting, NEPA documents and ecological restoration. His extensive
experience in the Midwest and Southeast has provided the opportunity to work on
many diverse projects and develop multiple productive relationships within these
regions including:
❖ Multiple Residential [Commercial Developments, North[south Carolina 2014-
2015 in which Mr. Caldwell provided assessments of critical habitat areas for
TOE species, presenceldbsence determinations, streamI�vvetlands assessments and
delineations, acquired appropriate jurisdictional determinations from the USACE
and NCDENR. Identified potential project alternatives for avoidance and
minimiEktion of impacts in reducing permitting (Section 4041401) time and
mitigation cost.
❖ City of Charlotte CSWS, North Carolina 2012-2014 in which Mr. Caldwell
provided technical direction and project management for multiple storm water
capital improvement projects®tream restoration projects throughout
Charlotte Eabarrus County. Project components involved coordination and
scheduling of monitoring tasks, development of assessment strategies, oversight
for field assessments of stream geomorphology, threatened and endangered
species evaluations, and data review and report preparation.
❖ North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Carolina 2012 in which Mr.
Caldwell delineated jurisdictional wetlands and streams, evaluated wetlands and
streams using state and Federal methods, developed conceptual wetland and
stream mitigation plans, performed surveys for threatened and endangered species
evaluations, and assisted with the submittal of Section 404 and 401 permit
applications for proposed roadway expansions®xtensions.
❖ SCDOT On -Call Environmental Permitting Services, South Carolina 2011 Mr.
Caldwell assisted with Section 4011404 permitting and related services for
roadway and bridge projects associated with the environmental permitting
services contract with South Carolina Department of Transportation. Tasks
included permit application preparation, wetland delineations and jurisdictional
determinations, federal and state threatened and endangered species habitat
assessments, GPS (0 IS mapping, and regulatory negotiations.
P.O. Box 690429
DAM Charlotte, NC 28227
MOGEN" MmGAMON. INC 704.576.1111 p

NM
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC
June 29, 2016
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Attn: Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: Grantham Subdivision Phases 1-4 — Archaeological Clearance Request
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley:
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800, is requesting concurrence that the Grantham Subdivision Project will
not impact any historic resources. The site is 190 acres and is located at approximately 8238
Appaloosa Lane, Concord, NC, 28215. We have included a Vicinity Map and Site Plan for your
review.
The proposed site for this project is comprised primarily of undeveloped forested areas, hay fields
and flood plain associated with Reedy Creek. Much of the property has been farmed historically.
One historical record adjacent to this project has been identified as Quay Farms (HPO Site ID#
CA0533). This historical parcel will not be directly impacted by any development activities and
cooperation with the existing resident has been established.
Only minor excavation will occur in the flood plain for stormwater management as noted on the
attached plans.
Your prompt concurrence that this project complies with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Mogensen
President, MMI
Cc: Shawn Santee, Avanti Properties
Mitch Latham, L&WE
P.O. Box 690429 Charlotte NC 98997 7nA_57R_1111 n