20170830 Ver 1_401 Application_20170717

Lad
tv 201 70830
CAROLINA �-6
WETLAND SERVICES
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. Date: 6-28-2017
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard CWS Project #: 2016-4039
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 - Phone
704-527-1133 - Fax
oC@R0
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR — NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit J U L 3 2017.
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building 40E �- A R RR SOUR nS
Raleigh, NC 27604
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE
1 6-28-2017 4 Permit Application for WQC No. 4092
2 6-28-2017 1 Application Fee ($240)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted
®For your use ❑Approved as noted
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections
❑For review and comment
❑Resubmit copies for approval
❑Submit copies for distribution
❑Return corrected prints
❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen, please find attached five copies of the Water Quality Certification application for the Addington
Crossing site. A check for the application fee of $240 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
A7—d- C.
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
June 28, 2017
Mr. Jason Randolph
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Charlotte Satellite Office D � M
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 1J
Asheville, NC 28801
AUL 3 2017
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 &Buffer Permitting Unit �EQ-WA ER RESOUR ES
401 & B FF PERMI IN
512 N. Salisbury St., 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
and 29 and WQC Nos. 4087 and 4092
Addington Crossing
Wesley Chapel, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Dear Mr. Randolph and Ms. Higgins,
The Addington Crossing site (Union County Tax Parcel No. 06021007) is approximately 104
acres in extent and is located south of Hudson Church Road in the Village of Wesley Chapel
incorporated limits (Union County), North Carolina (Figure 1, attached). CalAtlantic Homes has
contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to delineate the extent of jurisdictional
features within the project area and permit the proposed residential subdivision. An executed
Agent Authorization Form is attached (Attachment A). CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction
Notification pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No. 29 (Attachment B) for proposed impacts.
Applicant Name: CalAtlantic Homes; POC: Mr. Brian Johnson
Mailing Address: 6701 Carmel Rd Suite 425, Charlotte, NC 28226
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: [phone]
Street Address of Project: 5416 Hudson Church Rd., Indian Trail, NC 28079
Waterway: Price Mill Creek
Basin: Lower Catawba (HUC' 03050103)
City: Village of Wesley Chapel
County: Union
Tax Parcel No.: 06021007
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.0215040 N, -80.6817010 W
USGS Quadrangle Name: Matthews, NC (1986)
"HUC" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 11

Addington Crossing
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29
Current Land Use
June 28, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
The project area consists of forested areas, maintained open areas, and a powerline
right-of-way (Figure 2, attached). Typical on site vegetation consists of American holly (Ilex
opaca), black cherry (Prunus serotina), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), elderberry
(Sambucus nigra), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier (Smilax spp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Canadian clearweed (Piles pumila), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), marsh dayflower (Murdannia keisak), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Nepalese
browntop (Microstegium vimineum), woolgrasss (Scirpus cyperinus), sawtooth blackberry
(Rubus argutus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), spotted ladysthumb (Polygonum persicaria), and
various sedges (Carex spp.).
According to the Soil Survey of Union Countyz (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on-site soils consist
of Badin channery silty clay loam (2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded [BdB2] and 8 to 15
percent slopes, moderately eroded [BdC2]), Chewacla silt loam (0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded [ChA]), and Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam (2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded [TbB2]). Of the on-site soils, only Chewacla silt loam is listed as containing hydric
inclusions on the North Carolina Hydric Soils List for Union County3 and on the National Hydric
Soils List4 for Union County.
National Wetlands Inventory
Wetlands are an important source of biodiversity and provide a multitude of ecological services.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a
program which provides wetland data and analysis to the public. A review of the NWI GIS layer
depicts one potential Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and four potential Freshwater Ponds
located within the project limits (Figure 5, attached).
Jurisdictional Delineation
On May 31, 2016, Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, Wetland
Professional in Training (WPIT), and Ari Whiteman, Staff Scientist I, delineated on-site
jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Jurisdictional areas were delineated
(flagged in the field), classified, and mapped with a sub -foot Trimble Geo7X GPS unit using the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method
is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual,5 the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional
Z United States Department of Agriculture, 2013. Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina.
3 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. North Carolina Hydric Soils List,
USDA-NRCS North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
4 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. 2012 National Hydric Soils List by
State.
s Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Page 2 of 11

Addington Crossing June 28, 2017
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29 CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Form Instructional Guidebooks with further technical guidance from the 2012 Eastern Mountains
& Piedmont Regional Supplement.'
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) guidance. These classifications include sampling with a
D -shaped dip net, photograph documentation, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at
which stream channel changes classification) within each on-site stream channel. NCDEQ
Stream Classification Forms SCP1-SCP3 are representative of jurisdictional stream channels
(Attachment C). Wetland Determination Data Forms DPI-DP3 are representative of on-site
jurisdictional wetland areas and Wetland Determination Data Forms DP4 and DP5 are
representative of on-site non -jurisdictional upland areas (Attachment D). Locations of stream
classification points and the Wetland Determination Data Forms are depicted on Figure 6
(attached). Photographs A -J are representative of the on-site jurisdictional features (Attachment
E).
Results
Based on the results of this field investigation, there are eight jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
located within the project boundary (Figure 6, attached). These waters consist of three
jurisdictional stream channels (Streams A -C) and four jurisdictional wetlands (Wetland AA -DD),
and one jurisdictional pond (Pond A). The on-site jurisdictional waters drain to, and include
Price Mill Creek. Price Mill Creek is part of the Catawba River Basin (HUC 03050103) and is
classified as "Class C Waters" by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ). According to the NCDEQ, Class C Waters are defined as: "Waters protected for
uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. ,8
On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 2.2 acres, including 5,982 linear feet
of jurisdictional stream channel. On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are summarized in
Table 1, next page.
USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. 2007. USACE Regulatory National Standard Operating
Procedures for conducting an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD.
USACE Headquarters, Washington, DC.
US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
NCDEQ. "Surface Water Classifications." http://portal.ncdenr.orgtweb/wq/ps/csu/classifications.
Page 3 of 11

Addington Crossing
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29
June 28, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Table 1. Summa of an on-site jurisdictional stream channel of the U.S.
Jurisdictional
Stream
Jurisdiction
NCDEQ Stream
Classification
Score
Photograph
Approximate
Linear Feet (If)
Approximate
Acreage (ac.)
USACE/EPA Rapanos
Classification9
Stream A
(Price Mill
Creek)
Perennial RPW
30+
A
2,486
0.60
Perennial RPW
37
B
1,016
0.09
Stream B
Seasonal RPW
28
C
1,082
0.07
Stream C
Perennial RPW
34
D
1,398
0.10
Stream Total:
5,982 If
0.86 ac.
Jurisdictional
Wetland
Jurisdiction Photograph
USACE/EPA Rapanos Classification
Approximate
Linear Feet (If)
Approximate
Acreage (ac.)
Wetland AA
Directly Abutting Seasonal RPW Stream B E
N/A
0.16
Wetland BB
Directly Abutting Seasonal RPW Stream B F
N/A
0.01
Wetland CC
Directly Abutting Pond A G, H
N/A
0.70
Wetland DD
Directly Abutting Seasonal RPW Stream I
N/A
0.03
Wetland Total:
N/A
0.90 ac.
Jurisdictional
Pond
Jurisdiction
USACE/EPA Rapanos Classification
photograph
Linear Feet (If)
Acreage (ac.)
Pond A
Directly Abutting Wetland CC
J
N/A
0.44
Pond Total
N/A
0.44
Total Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.:1
5,482 If 1
2.2 ac.
Relatively Permanent Waters
Relatively Permanent Waters10 (RPWs) are streams that have year-round flow in normal
conditions. RPWs generally have greater biological resources than seasonal streams and are
capable of supporting resources requiring constant flow for reproductive and maturation stages.
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are three
RPWs (Streams A - C) located within the project area (Figure 6, attached).
RPW Stream A (Price Mill Creek) oat the northeastern portion of the project limits and flows
south-southwest along the property boundary for approximately 2,486 linear feet before
continuing off site at the southeastern project limits (Figure 6, attached). As Price Mill Creek is a
known stream and is labeled on the USGS map (Figure 1, attached), an NCDEQ Stream
Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and
Non -Relatively Permanent Waters (Non-RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have
year-round flow, and seasonal streams that have continuous flow at least seasonally. Two classifications of jurisdictional wetlands
are used to describe proximity and connection to TNWs. These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting.
Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within floodplains or in close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible
connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water connection traceable to a TNW.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 5, 2007. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
http:/twww.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_051207final.pdf.
Page 4 of 11

Addington Crossing June 28, 2017
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29 CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Classification Form was not completed. Photograph A (Attachment E) is representative of RPW
Stream A.
Stream B originates on site in the western portion of limits and flows southeast for a total of
approximately 2,098 linear feet to an off-site confluence with Perennial RPW Stream A at the
southern project limits (Figure 6, attached). The upper approximately 1,082 linear feet of Stream
B is classified as a Seasonal RPW. The lower approximately 1,016 linear feet of Stream B is
classified as a Perennial RPW. Perennial RPW Stream B originates on site from a breakpoint in
the southwestern portion of the project limits where Seasonal RPW Stream B changes flow
classification to Perennial RPW Stream B. Perennial RPW Stream B flows southeast for
approximately 1,016 linear feet to an off-site confluence with Perennial RPW Stream A at the
southern project limits. RPW Stream B (R5UB2)" exhibits strong continuity of channel bed and
bank, sinuosity of channel along thalweg, in -channel structure, particle size of substrate, and
baseflow presence. Biological sampling revealed a weak presence of crayfish and a moderate
presence of amphibians. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present year
round in a typical year. Stream characteristics indicate that continuous flow is present year
round in a typical year. RPW Stream B scored a 37 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDEQ
Stream Classification Form (SCP1, attached). Photograph B (Attachment E) is representative of
RPW Stream B.
Perennial RPW Stream C originates off site from a pipe in the northern project boundary.
Perennial RPW Stream C flows southeast for approximately 1,398 linear before continuing to an
off-site confluence with Perennial RPW Stream A. Perennial RPW Stream C (R5UB2) exhibits
strong continuity of channel bed and bank and sinuosity of channel along thalweg, and
moderate in -channel structure, moderate amount of iron oxidizing bacteria, and moderate
organic debris lines or piles. Biological sampling revealed a moderate presence of
macrobenthos and weak presence of fish and amphibians. Perennial RPW Stream C scored 36
out of a possible 63 points on the NCDEQ Stream Classification Form, indicating Perennial
status (SCP3, attached). Photograph D (Attachment E) is representative of Perennial RPW
Stream C.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters 12 (RPWs) are those that exhibit continuous flow for at
least three consecutive months per year on a seasonal basis. This flow regime is the result of a
lowering of the water table during dry periods that prevents ground water discharge to the
stream channel. Seasonal streams do not typically support aquatic life requiring year-round flow
necessary for reproductive and maturation stages. The results of the on-site field investigation
conducted by CWS indicate that there is one Seasonal RPW (Stream B) located within the
project area (Figure 6, attached)
Stream B originates on site in the western portion of limits and flows southeast for a total of
approximately 2,098 linear feet to an off-site confluence with Perennial RPW Stream A at the
southern project limits. The upper approximately 1,082 linear feet of Stream B is classified as a
" R5UB2 = Unknown perennial stream with sandy bottom, Cowardin et al. Classification System, 1979.
12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 5, 2007. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www. usace.army. mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworksireg ulatory/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_051207final. pdf.
Page 5 of 11

Addington Crossing June 28, 2017
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29 CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Seasonal RPW. The lower approximately 1,016 linear feet of Stream B is classified as a
Perennial RPW. Seasonal RPW Stream B originates on site in the northwestern portion of the
project limits and flows southeast for approximately 638 linear feet into Wetland AA. Seasonal
RPW Stream B exits Wetland AA and flows southeast for approximately 443 linear feet before
reaching a breakpoint where flow classification changes to Perennial RPW B (Figure 6,
attached). Seasonal Stream B (R4SB4)13 exhibits strong continuity of channel bed and bank
and moderate sinuosity of channel along thalweg, in -channel structure, particle size of
substrate, natural valley presence, baseflow presence, sediment on plants and debris, and
organic debris lines or piles. Biological sampling revealed a weak presence of amphibians.
Biological sampling revealed a weak presence of amphibians. Seasonal RPW Stream C scored
28 out of a possible 63 points on the NCDEQ Stream Classification Form (SCP2, attached).
Photograph C (Attachment E) is representative of Seasonal RPW Stream C.
Wetlands
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as: "Those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 04 The USACE uses three parameters to identify
jurisdictional wetlands. These parameters are as follows: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) wetland
hydrology, and 3) hydric soils. Except in certain atypical situations, all three parameters must be
present in order for an area to be determined to be a jurisdictional wetland. The results of the
on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there are four jurisdictional wetland
areas (Wetlands AA -DD) located within the project area.
Wetland AA is approximately 0. 16 acres in extent and directly abuts Seasonal RPW Stream B in
the western portion of the project limits (Figure 6, attached). Wetland BB is approximately 0.01
acre in extent and directly abuts Seasonal RPW Stream B in the western portion of the project
limits (Photograph F; Attachment E). Wetland CC is approximately 0.70 acre in extent and
directly abuts Pond A and Perennial RPW C in the northern portion of the project limits
(Photographs G and H; Attachment E). Wetland DD is approximately 0.03 acre in extent and
directly abuts Perennial Stream C in the central portion of the project limits (Photograph I;
Attachment E).
Wetlands AA, BB, DD, and approximately 0.44 acre of Wetland CC are classified as a forested
wetland (PF01)15 that exhibit low chroma soils, surface water, high water table, saturation to
surface, iron deposits, and water stained leaves. Dominant vegetation for the on-site forested
wetlands includes green ash, tag alder, jewelweed, and marsh dayflower. A Wetland
Determination Data Form representative of Wetlands AA, CC (forested), and DD is attached as
DPI and a Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland BB is attached as DP2.
The herbaceous portion of Wetland CC is approximately 0.25 acre in extent and directly abuts
Perennial RPW Stream C in the northern portion of the project limits (Photograph H, attached).
" R4SB4 = Intermittent stream with sand bottom, Cowardin et al. Classification System, 1979.
14 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
5 PF01 = Forested wetland with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation, Cowardin et al. Classification System, 1979
Page 6 of 11

Addington Crossing June 28, 2017
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29 CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Wetland CC (herbaceous) is classified as an herbaceous wetland (PEM16)that exhibits low
chroma soils, surface water, high water table, and saturation to surface. Dominant vegetation
for Wetland CC (herbaceous) includes elderberry, tag alder, soft rush, and sawtooth blackberry.
Figure 6 (attached) depicts the location of Wetland CC and a Wetland Determination Data Form
(DP3, attached) representative of Wetland CC (herbaceous).
Jurisdictional Ponds
Pond A (PUB") is approximately 0.44 acre in extent and is located in the northern portion of the
project limits, directly abutting Wetland CC (Figure 6, attached). Pond A is an impoundment of
Perennial RPW Stream C with both upstream and downstream connections to jurisdictional
waters of the U.S., therefore classifying Pond A as jurisdictional. Additionally, Pond A is
depicted on the National Wetlands Inventory. Photograph J (Attachment E)) is representative of
Pond A.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May
30, 2017 to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance that would be affected by the project. In a response letter dated June 23, 2017 the
SHPO states that they "are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project." A copy of the SHPO response letter is included as Attachment F. CWS also consulted
the SHPO online GIS service 18 database and found no historical structures, buildings, sites, or
districts within the project limits.
Protected Species
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data
Explorer19 on March 10, 2017 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate
endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on the
NCNHP review, there are no current records of federally -protected species within the project
limits or within a mile of the project site. A copy of the data review report is included as
Attachment G. Two pedestrian surveys of the project area were conducted on March 13, 2017
and March 23, 2017. Based on these site visits, no potential habitat for the Schweinitz's
sunflower and Michaux's sumac was identified within the Addington Crossing project limits. As,
this project occurs within Price Mill Creek within the Lower Catawba River Basin, there are no
known populations within this watershed. Based on the site visit, no suitable habitat for the
Carolina heelsplitter was observed within the project limits.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of the project is to develop the property into a single-family residential
neighborhood. The project proposes to install one culvert in jurisdictional waters of the U.S. for
a new subdivision road, as well as, remove an on-line pond and restore the stream channel and
'B PEM = Herbaceous wetland with emergent vegetation, Cowardin et al. Classification System, 1979
" PUB = Palustrine with unconsolidated bottom, Cowardin et al. Classification System, 1979.
18 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http://gis.nedcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed May 30, 2017.
" North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https://nenhde.natureserve.org/. Accessed March 10, 2017.
Page 7of11

Addington Crossing June 28, 2017
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29 CWS Project No. 2016-4039
riparian wetlands within the pond footprint. This area is experiencing rapid population growth
due to its proximity to 1-485 and State Highway 74 which provide efficient connection to
neighboring cities such as Charlotte, Matthews, Weddington, Wesley Chapel, and Monroe in
North Carolina. There is a need for residential housing in order to meet the current demand
within this highly -desirable area.
The primary driver for the proposed on-site dam and associated pond removal is due to safety
concerns with the low head dam. Maintenance of the on-site dam would be necessary to meet
all compliance and regulatory requirements associated with residential developments. Stream
and wetland restoration of the pond through dam removal is a more cost effective way to meet
all regulatory requirements and improve water quality. The net effect of this dam and pond
removal will be an ecological uplift for the site. Stream and wetland restoration is currently
being designed. Sheet 1 of the construction plan sheets depicts the proposed site plan
(Attachment H).
Avoidance and Minimization
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid impacts wherever possible. The currently
proposed site plan was developed as a result of the alternatives analysis and avoidance and
minimization process. Configuration and density of all proposed constructed features have
been designed to limit impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent
practicable while still meeting project needs and requirements. All work will be constructed in
the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certifications (WQC) No. 4087 and 4092. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters. All sewerline stream crossings will be done via jack -and -bore and therefore do not
result in additional impacts to the waters of the U.S (Sheet 1, Attachment H).
Stream and wetland restoration at the current dam and impoundment area will provide an
overall ecological uplift to the site. The specific restoration plan has been developed to meet all
of NCDEQ's standards of stream and wetland design for enhancement and restoration
(Attachment 1).
Proposed Design Plan
The proposed project layout represents the goals of the applicant that include meeting a
minimum number of lots to make the project economically feasible while maintaining aesthetic
characteristics, meeting federal, state and local regulations, avoiding stream buffers, and
minimizing environmental impacts. The Addington Crossing subdivision plan has been
designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable.
Avoidance is represented by designing the project to have two separate entrances, one off
Hudson Church Road and the second off Potter Road. The Hudson Church Road entrance
allows the project to avoid a second project related stream crossing on Stream C. However, the
proposed stream crossing and impact site on Stream B is needed to access a portion of the
project property off Carlton Court that is otherwise inaccessible due to the following reasons:
Price Mill Creek runs along the eastern property boundary, privately -owned parcels along the
western property boundary restrict access, and Stream C runs along the northern portion of the
project boundary. Shifting the subdivision road Selma Drive to the west to avoid crossing
Stream B is not feasible for the following reasons: the project property offers little room to
Page 8 of 11

Addington Crossing
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29
June 28, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
provide a properly designed subdivision roadway that navigates around the intermittent stream
that accounts for the 30 -foot stream buffer, property setbacks, road right-of-way (ROW), and
grading limits for the alternate road alignment.
This project also involves draining Pond A and providing ecosystem enhancement by restoring
the stream channel in the existing pond footprint that has been impounded with the installation
of the low head dam. The net effect of this action will result in ecological uplift to the aquatic
ecosystem. Thermal pollution will be reduced with the elimination of the pond; low quality
aquatic habitat within the pond will be replaced with higher quality habitat conditions within the
restored stream reach; water quality conditions and support within the pond, which currently
acts to accumulate sediment and cause the release of sediment pulses during rain events, will
be improved by the replacement of the pond with the restored stream.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. wherever possible. We believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that
meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest
extent practicable.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 29, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. associated with this project are limited to a total of 125 linear feet (0.0013 acre) of
jurisdictional stream channel and 0.44 acre of jurisdictional pond. The permanent impact to
Seasonal RPW Stream B is the result of the installation of a road crossing with a 90 linear foot
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and associated concrete turndowns and rip rap apron (Sheets
1-4, Attachment H). The 0.44 acres of open waters consist of draining the existing pond, a
constructed impoundment of Stream C, and restoring the pond footprint to the pre -dam natural
stream and wetland state (Attachment 1). The proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S are summarized in Table 2, next page.
Stream Impacts (S1 -S4) — Seasonal RPW Stream B
The proposed road crossing is located in the southeastern/central portion of the property.
Culvert installation, riprap apron, and concrete turndown placements associated with the road
crossing construction will result in 125 linear feet of permanent impacts to Seasonal RPW
Stream B (Sheet 2, Attachment H). To construct the proposed road crossing, a 90 -linear foot,
60 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) will be installed, resulting in 90 linear feet of permanent
impacts to Seasonal RPW Stream B (S1). The proposed culvert will be buried a minimum of
one foot below the channel bed to allow passage of aquatic life and maintain low flows.
Headwalls at the inlet and outlet of the culvert will be utilized in order to minimize channel
impacts to the maximum extent practicable, as well as prevent erosional forces from
undermining the culvert inlet and outlet..
Placement of concrete turndowns in the stream bed, both upstream and downstream of the
culvert, will result in an additional 10 linear feet of permanent impacts (S2). Placement of riprap
apron in the stream bed downstream of the culvert will result in an additional 25 linear feet of
permanent impacts (S3). The placement of riprap is necessary to prevent erosional forces from
undermining the culvert inlets and outlets, as well as maintain the integrity of the road crossing.
Page 9 of 11

Addington Crossing
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29
June 28, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
This will reduce the need for maintenance work on the proposed culvert in the foreseeable
future and, therefore, minimize the future impacts to the channel. Temporary stream impacts
would occur with a pump around or similar stream diversion to complete culvert installation in
the dry for a total of 20 linear feet (S-4).
This proposed road crossing is necessary in order to complete the subdivision and to provide
sufficient ingress and egress for emergency vehicles throughout the development in accordance
with the local ordinances. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to
minimize disturbances to downstream waters. A plan view, profile view, and cross-sectional
view are included as Sheets 2-4 (Attachment H).
Pond Drainage and Stream Restoration (0 1) — Pond A
Under NWP 27, 0.44 acres of converted pond will be restored to a natural stream state based
on the downstream ecological reference (Pond Drainage and Stream Restoration Plan;
Attachment 1). This activity will result in a net increase in aquatic resource functions and
services as required by NWP 27. Construction activities will include breaching the undersized
dam to drain the pond, dredge or fill material to restore appropriate stream channel
configuration, and riparian seeding and planting of natural vegetation. Temporary downstream
impacts include the installation of rip rap and coconut matting to stabilize downstream banks
during pond breaching.
Table 2. Proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
urisdictiona
Feature
Impact
No.
Impact Type
NWP No. Temporary/ Approximate Approximate
Permanent Length (If) Acreage (ac.)
S1
Culvert
29 Permanent
90
0.010
S2
Concrete Turndown
29 Permanent
10
0.001
Stream B
S3
Riprap apron
29 Permanent
25
0.002
S4
Temporary Structures
29 Temporary
20
0.002
Pond A
01
Drainage
27 Permanent
N/A
0.44
Temporary Impact Total:
20 If
0.002 ac.
Permanent Impact Total:
125 If
0.453 ac.
On behalf of CalAtlantic Homes, CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction Notification Application
with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 32 (attached)
and pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 27 and 29.
Compensatory Mitigation
Under NWP 29, permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to 125
linear feet stream channel. We believe that the proposed culvert system and rip rap apron
design meets the project goals while avoiding and minimizing impacts to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for these impacts.
Page 10 of 11

Addington Crossing
PCN Pursuant to NWP 27 and 29
June 28, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not
hesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704-408-1683 or [e-mail] should you have
any questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
a�'ornrrrE®
e��*eP� WEY�
w1�\o��.p. a tip sZ
4� J NO. 0001 Z
Sean Martin
Senior Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2: Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 3: USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey of Union County Map
Figure 4: USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Survey of Union County Map
Figure 5: National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 6: Jurisdictional Boundaries Map
Attachment A - Agent Authorization Form
Attachment B - Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide
Permit No. 29
Attachment C - NCDEQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1-SCP3)
Attachment D - USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP1-DP5)
Attachment E - Photopage (Photographs A -J)
Attachment F - SHPO Response Letter
Attachment G - NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment H - Plan Sheets: Proposed Impacts S1 -S4
Attachment I - Pond Drainage and Stream Restoration Plan
Page 11 of 11

v �. s,: ter; i :>> y �. -• �( r
c _
�� r--�-ice � t -�(� � 1� 1� �� � r• li' Z•� � :y_r� �� 1' 1 � t '
K7,Ir
L � • r+. �`_ ���} 1 � 't . , 1 ,,yy: / ,y, ` 6`� I \,- � ' j�� 4 L--' 1(. � �(/�'-./ _ ` I / ,
._�. ; ,,\_ r �� ;;1rr•-J� � ��,�, - lire � � ,,7� I, ,�v��� tf
y�l •� Sr�! I ��`�.;�-,'-'.�I ir, 1�• 11.( 1, :�;.1 1 f' � �. z _ _ `+ f �� �.�_,
J\
/17At
�`, ` � l�✓1f {/ C :%i1. %]t'.'..� � � ` � � `. ` L /� l Jf1 !J//•y'�/r.' r f
Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road Cit
Beulah Church Road
?,.,�, 11� _ •�_ . 1316 ` ( �'l.` p' 11 \ +t3Nftidl•�((
Potter Road °� (lr�i F0"
i!, Y �1/�r� ��,h, i\�.�\L /�� elf-- � �/Q p I.�!` �� ->� � .`� `..• � � �'"(d' .
� ti/ (�f��6 � �y U \.__V 4�f' _ S\ X1316 - • � � � � � / /�'
A.)
r
Legend
�U �j. fc1�;���, 1 ` ��jj ��J� •Ii `Cly Project Limits
2,000 1,000! 0 2,000 Feet -
REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC USGS QUADRANGLE MATHEWS, NC (1986).
-i . r I -� 6Y/ 'I�. - -� I Olij�-1. f � :./-i-�✓ t � i 1 L � /�ji
SCALE: DATE: 5�3 I X2016 FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet USGS Site Location Map
-WS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY.
2016-4039 MML rL Addington Crossing
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY. CAROLINA Wesley Chapel, North Carolina
KMT WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2016-4039
U:\2016\CWS\2016Projects\20164039 Potter Rd Subdivision\ArcG1S\Figurel_USGS.mxd

U:\2016\CWSU016 Projects\2016-4039 Potter Rd Subdivision\ArcGIS\Figure2_Aerial.mxd

U:\2016\CWS\2016 Projects\2016-4039 Potter Rd Subdivision\ArcGIS\Figure3_CurrentSoils.mxd

TaB r
�c i `
/ ChA ULZZnB B PJB ChA 839
Tu1
Tb81 b Ta� SGA y
� jff ctiie
S '
cA eas Tab
TbB2 i
TaG r 61V\
TUB M2 ReT2 Bde2 WC2 % Men
�~ TaC bbl CLIA 001 UK J � Zn8 t
SCA Zrr
y I ✓Bi
TbB2 1004 ZnBOD
EkB2
Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road scA 6d62 zn6
1357
. _ r- del i � %' ' 6dr,2
/ ThR) �_�84C$ Cr l Bac BaB
/ 1\ Baa Men
ScA
Bd82 � 1 GIB f / �
IDB? GIB? TaB E'BdG2 � BGB"L
ZnB
G ChA ➢ M2 CoA �0ti
SCA C,oG 8dC2p GOC
ChA J �0T y
6dB2 2
6
/&cz � 1062
ca
CMR ibB2
ChA f ZnB
CiB_7
1482
Z ��G Hud "::" �- - �..—/� CMB
Chi 192
BaC CMB
eCz
tb61
8 6d82 / f
� ChA . f' ZnB Zn8 Bac
T07
BaB 1
Potter Road 6dC2 T;_.,7 Men CmB ln6 G5C
u% Gss X
i1r1t ZnC m GsB
O
Genter
Q ' BaC Ch chA .•, G?, Ins
Bd82
BaB 6d62 MC2 �'F
t162 TaB Tub
p saCn8
Gv' ' Bab \ � Z kA
7R't GsB ,y TaC ChA
Bab TaB r T062
BaC ChA,. m TvB
m Bab
Ci67-
Pc22 �r 63C
�\ 188 \ d
�– BGC? \
BBC1 Cm B Bac GIB
Jd U la
TbB2 TaB / ,.-. FIb62 `-J �\
8a8
On -Site Soils Legend
BdB2 -Badin channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded ,�r,,,8 esley GIB
BdC2 - Badin channery silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded Chapele project Limits - Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded cm9
TbB2 - Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
3.000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
RFIM,' f NCE: USDA-NRCS HISTORIC SOIL SURVEY OF UNION COT TNTY N(. SHEFfS 12 AND 17, DATED 1990. Bd 2
mB
CALE: I Inch = 2,000 feet DATE. 6/20/2016 USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
WS PROJECT NO: DRAVIN By of Union County
2016-4039 MML cL Addington Crossing
APPLICANT No: CHECKED BY CAROLINA Wesley Chapel, North Carolina 4
I. -M /
KT WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2016-4039
U:\1016\CWS\2016 Projects\2016-4039 Potter Rd Subdivision\ArcGIS\FigureA_HistorieSoils.mxd

U:\2016\CWS\2016 Projects\2016-4039 Potter Rd SubdivisionWrcGIS\Figure5_NWl.rnxd

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A:
Agent Authorization Form
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representative of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of
conducting on-site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of
the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
I, Mr. Brian Johnson, representing CalAtlantic Homes, hereby certify that I have
authorized Gregg Antemann of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf and
take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for
wetlands determination / permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Applica ignature
Date
ZT_�_ c- - *_ Z �_
Agent's signature
June 15, 2017
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT B:
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide
Permit No. 29

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 Jan 2009
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 & 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Addington Crossing
2b.
County:
Union
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Village of Wesley Chapel
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
CalAtlantic Group, Inc.
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
6638/409
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Brian Johnson, VP Land Development (CalAtlantic Homes)
3d.
Street address:
6701 Carmel Road Suite 435
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28226
3f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Gregg Antemann, PWS
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e.
Telephone no.:
[phone] ext. 1
5f.
Fax no.:
[phone]
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
06021007
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.021504 Longitude: -80.681701(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
104.09-acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
Price Mill Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin: map is available at
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/
Catawba
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area consists of forested areas, maintained open areas, and a powerline right -of -wave proiect areas along
the southwest property boundary are currently maintained as pasture for hay production. An online pond (Pond A)
on UT -Price Mill Creek (Stream C) is located near the northern portion of the property south of Hudson Church Road.
A dilapidated residential structure is located on the eastern portion of the property boundary. Surrounding properties
include a patchwork of undeveloped forested areas, agricultural fields, single-family residential developments and
powerline rights-of-way.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.9
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
5,982
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proiect is to develop the property into a single-family residential neighborhood. The proiect
proposes to install one culvert to convey jurisdictional waters of the U.S. for a new subdivision road, as well as,
remove an online pond and provide ecosystem enhancement by restoring the stream channel within the pond
footprint.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proiect involves develovinq the 104 -acre parcel as a single-family residential subdivision to meet the growing
demand for residential housing in an area that is located within proximity to 1-485 and NC Hwy 74 serving
surrounding municipalities. As part of the proiect design, one crossing on jurisdictional waters of the U.S. is
proposed where a double 60" x 90' RCP culvert will convey flow on perennial UT -Price Mill Creek (see attached Site
Plans, Attachment H). The double culvert will consist of a normal flow section to be buried one foot below streambed
for aquatic life passage: the second culvert section invert will be set to the one year flood elevation and will act to
convey streamflow during peak rain events (Attachment H). Permanent stream impacts would occur with the
installation of the proposed culvert (S1: 90 -If) in addition to a concrete turndown on the inlet of the culvert (S2: 10 -If)
and a riprap apron at the outfall (S3: 25 -If): total permanent stream impacts will total 125 -linear feet. Temporary
stream impacts would occur with a pump around or similar stream diversion to complete culvert installation in the dry
for a total of 20 -linear feet (S-4). Refer to the Sheets 2-4 in Attachment H. Installation of the culvert will be permitted
using Nationwide Permit No. 29. All sewerline stream crossings will be done via iack-and-bore and therefore do not
result in additional impacts to the waters of the U.S (Sheet 1, Attachment H).
Under Nationwide Permit No. 27, an existing online pond (Pond A) will be removed and restored to its natural stream
condition based on geomorphic and ecological reference reach data upstream and downstream of the site. This
activity will result in a net increase in aquatic resource functions and services as required by NWP 27. The pond
removal will result in a 0.45 -acre permanent open water impact (0-1). Construction activities will include installing a
temporary flow diversion pipe to drain the pond, removing the low head earthen dam (<12'), restoring UT -Price Mill
Creek through the pond footprint to reference stream channel characteristics, and riparian seeding - planting of
natural vegetation. The attached Pond Drainage and Stream Restoration Plan (Attachment 1) provides the details
needed to complete these proposed actions.
The ecosystem enhancement will include restoring stream channel within the pond footprint, constructed as a
Rosgen type B channel using rock and log structures throughout for grade control, stability, and habitat enhancement
(Attachment 1). A total of 266 -linear feet of restored stream channel is proposed. Due to the uncertainties regarding
the specific characteristics of the pond bed, some field adjustments may be needed to the stream restoration plan
following the draining of the pond. Any major changes will be coordinated with permitting agencies prior to
implementation. Following the initial draining of the pond, the entire pond bed will be stabilized with temporary
erosion control seed mix. At the completion of the stream channel restoration, the stream banks will be matted and
riparian areas will be seeded with native seed mix. Live stakes will be installed during the immediate following
dormant season, November through March, along the restored stream channel banks and riparian zone to facilitate
rapid establishment of woody species.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
El Yes ®No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: CWS, Inc
Name (if known): CWS, Inc staff delineated project waters of
Other:
the U.S.
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
® Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
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.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Culvert
UT -Price Mill
® PER
® Corps
8
90
Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ®P ❑ T
Concrete
UT -Price Mill
® PER
® Corps
g
10
Turndown
Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ® P ❑ T
Riprap Apron
UT -Price Mill
Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
g
25
S4 ❑ P ® T
Fill (Temporary
UT -Price Mill
® PER
® Corps
g
20
Structures)
Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
145
3i. Comments: 125 -linear feet of permanent stream impact associated with the installation of culvert; 20 -linear feet of
temporary stream impact with the pump around or flow diversion measure.
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ®P ❑ T
Drainage
Online Pond
0.45
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
0. Total open water impacts
0.45
4g. Comments: Impacts are associated with the draining of the pond for restoring the stream channel through pond footprint.
S. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse El Tar -Pamlico El Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
B1 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: Not within the protected riparian buffer jurisdiction.
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

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 proposed project layout represents the goals of the applicant that include meeting a minimum number of lots to
make the project economically feasible while maintaining aesthetic characteristics, meeting federal, state and local
regulations avoiding stream buffers and minimizing environmental impacts The Addington Crossing subdivision
plan has been designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable.
Avoidance is represented by designing the project to have two separate entrances, one off Hudson Church Road and
the second off Potter Road. The Hudson Church Road entrance allows the project to avoid a second project related
stream crossing on Stream C. However, the proposed stream crossing and impact site on Stream B is needed to
access a portion of the proiect property off Carlton Court that is otherwise inaccessible Price Mill Creek runs along
the eastern property boundary, privately -owned parcels along the western property boundary restrict access and
Stream C runs along the northern portion of the project boundary. Shifting the subdivision road Selma Drive to the
west to avoid crossing Stream B is not feasible because the project property offers little room to provide a properly
designed subdivision roadway that navigates around the intermittent stream accounting for the 30 -ft. stream buffer,
Property setbacks, road ROW, and grading limits for such a road.
The project also involves draining Pond A and providing ecosystem enhancement by restoring the stream channel in
the old pond footprint. The net effect of this action will result in ecological uplift to the aquatic ecosystem. Thermal
pollution will be reduced with the elimination of the pond; low quality aquatic habitat within the pond will be replaced
with higher quality habitat conditions within the restored stream reach; water quality conditions and support within the
pond which currently acts to accumulate sediment and cause the release of sediment pulses during rain events, will
be improved by the replacement of the pond with the restored stream.
b.
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Culvert installation and stream restoration work will be completed in the dry. Appropriate sediment and erosion
control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Following pond draining, the pond
bed will be stabilized with an erosion control seed mixture. The pond bed will be allowed time to dry out providing a
more stable work area for the stream restoration phase. Areas outside of the stream restoration corridor within the
pond footprint will be avoided to during the stream restoration phase to maximize stable conditions Matting and
seeding the restoration stream banks will occur immediately following grading work to ensure site conditions become
stable as quickly as possible. All sewerline stream crossings will be done via jack -and -bore and therefore do not
result in additional impacts to the waters of the U.S (Sheet 1, Attachment H).
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
—T—
Type
Quantity
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? If yes, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
contact the State for more information.
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
❑ Yes ® No
1b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Project is within the Catawba River Basin, but it is not located along the
❑ Yes ❑ No
main -stem of the Catawba River or along the main -stem lakes.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
12%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Cal Atlantic Homes is proposing to develop a new residential community on the northeast side of the Potter Road within
the Village of Wesley Chapel, NC. This residential development covers approximately
103.66 acres and will include 51
single-family homes with lots averaging approximately one acre in size. The residential development will include the
construction of roadways and infrastructure that includes four onsite detention facilities. A storm water management plan
has been developed to mitigate the impacts upon the watershed for the project area. The watershed is approximately
239.26 acres of which approximately 135.60 acres is considered offsite. A storm drain system will be constructed to direct
runoff throughout the development. This storm drain system of storm pipe and grass
swales will accept onsite runoff and
also allow for offsite drainage to flow through the project site. This runoff will be directed towards the historic flow path
downstream of our project site and into Price Mill Creek. The four detention basins mentioned above will be constructed,
as part of the storm drain system, to assure that storm water runoff amounts post proiect will be less than or equal to [)re-
development levels.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Certified Local Government
® DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
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
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project is a single and complete non-linear project. The project will not provide access or utilities to future adjoining
rp oiects.
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.
Project will be served by the Village of Wesley Chapel public sewer service.
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?
❑ Yes ® No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
E] Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) North Carolina Distribution Records of Endangered,
Threatened, list for Union County were reviewed. The USFWS database lists the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzu), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmipona decorata). and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). CWS performed a
data review using NCNHP Data Explorer on March 10, 2017 to determine the presence of any federally-listed,
endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on the NCNHP review, no
current records of federally-protected species within the project limits or within a mile of the project site. Two
pedestrian surveys of the project area were conducted on March 13, 2017 and March 23, 2017. Based on these site
visits, no potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower and Michaux's sumac was identified within the Addington
Crossing proiect limits. As, this proiect occurs within Price Mill Creek within the Lower Catawba River Basin, there
are no known populations within this watershed. Based on the site visit, no suitable habitat for the Carolina
heelsplitter was observed within the project limits.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? NOAA Essential
Fish Habitat Mapper - http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/
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 status (e.g., National Historic Trust
designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)?
❑ Yes ® No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Based on a review of the State Historic Preservation Office's online GIS Mapping Application, there are no historic
properties listed within the project limits. Field reconnaissance and aerial imagery analysis indicate there are no
structures on the property.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Mapped 100-year FEMA floodplain occurs within the Price Mill
Creek corridor: no work is proposed to occur within mapped floodplains.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
NC Flood Risk Information System - http://fris.nc.gov/fris/Home.aspx?ST=NC
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January, 2009 Version

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT C:
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
NCDEQ Stream Classification Forms (SCP1-SCP3)

NC tnWn Cfream ictentifieation Form Version 4.11
Date: ._ _
Project/Site:�x. ,,
Latitude:
Evaluator: R:tjl..f.. •5{*
County: 1
Longitude: ,t,k935c(
Total Points:Y
Stream Is at least Intermittent `L
Stream Determination (cr le_SLne}
Other A�
f
Ephemeral Intermlttenterennial`;
e.g. Quad Name: r f
e i
if>_ 19 orperennial if a 30*
�....__.�
f
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = t )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a.Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2:
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
f
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
rt le ool sequence
0
1
2�
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2'
1.5
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
�"1,=
2
3
8. Headcuts
0`
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrlrninnv fSarhtntal = € :." 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
D
3
14. Leaf litter
1.)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5%°
2
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
1
Yes3 j
C Rininnv fSuhtotal = -7 .5 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3�
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
t
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0':
1
2
3
22. Fish
�Q'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
{rD.bD
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
(a)
1.5
25. Algae
)
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other 4T`:
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Vr'nwn .CtrPam Trtrntifirntinn Form Version 4.11
Date: (-,E
Pro)ectlSite:"P'C'1- 6X�a
Latitude: �z rra
Evaluator: i �r i .,.��
County: ,t`A
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other�x;
Stream is at leastintermritent
Ephemeral rit�Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: 5(,r'
!f 2 19 orperennial ff a30*
Q��
M
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = i `
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
C
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Q��
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
r_2�
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
r2;
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
a2
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(J)
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0 ,,
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
I"
2
3
9. Grade control
1-)
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
'1 %
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0._`.
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R H drolo Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2;
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
CID-
2
3
14. Leaf litter
r1.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
9
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
: 1 a
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0)
No = 0
1
Yes3 3
T Rinlnnv M11htntal - i. 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
;'1`
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
i`1.
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
.- b
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
10;
1
2
3
22. Fish
{f)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
Co . `
1
1.5
25. Algae-
0.5 1
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants In streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other ti0`
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

ATI 7►\ATl1 Q+Vnrm VPrsinn d_11
Date: 611 i J-
Project/Site: PC,*1 lea' d
Latitude: J S. 6 Zo S
Evaluator: A V 14 & AW
County: ujI ty-\
Longitude:
Total Points.
Stream Is at least intermittent 3
Stream Determination (circle e)
Ephemeral Intermittent erenni
Other SCS 3
e.g. Quad Name:
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
if z 19 or perennial if z 30"
2
1.5
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
ModerateStrong
0 1
1e, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
1.5
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
©
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
07
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
40
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
Other = 0
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
Q L ,Ar 1-n /Q. M^fI - 1- t ss / 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
3
14. Leaf litter
5 1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 5
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
r' Qi..lr.nu /(2.44-4-1 -- I 1 i 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
07
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennlal streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT D:
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (DP1-DP5)

WETLArN�D� �DETERMIINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pro�ect/slte: �O �f FotaGa City/County: �3.1/�' Sampling Date: t0
Applicant/Owner; ob.l"6sA4le. hbv�5 State: WC,_ Sampling Point -CD2
Investigator(s): AVI+ 4- J4W Section, Township, Range:. W " Nnma k
Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): ti,rvv — Local relief (concave, convex, none): L`s: ^° - Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): PAJ Rn 13(o Lat: 3 ��®t'�5� Long: "S� �JO�oO Datum: Nth
Sol Map Unit Name: (` NW] classification: P1,12
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _I—%_ No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil, , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes %( No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nc
Remarks:
D& �} i s c ¢ tE a �J. o-'riti `� i taL x a ims fz 1a3 R r tc ca�tt a, .
4tr;.5 AP z fr Af"A' ,4';5 . 1 C1 owd c lid I-1wA J M
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ _ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
~_
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
W Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches): JP
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes } No
includes ca lila fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available:
Remarks:
$ndic b-+ ti�'a wt� �c►,��
hvfki icc `+� -X Q^
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) -- Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DFJO
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
4
5
7
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapl n /Sq hrub Stratum (Plot size: I s )
1. Mthus Y
2.1 ink � Fv, cwre ainn , Se _
3.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Multiply by:
Number of Dominant Species
x 1 =
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
n
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
% 0 o
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AIB)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
X4=
UPL species
z 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
5•
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators:
7•
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6•
_
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
LIC = Total Cover
50% of total cover: r G 20% of total cover: 12,
_
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
10 )
rr ,�.�W
+
^Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
1, frnrzY�, r Qr1ni
2. •
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3?QU4rft Eierraicoxia-
—JV
� �
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.?Nra PU_Vv%4CL_
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 2o% of total cover:_
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
temarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 it (1
M) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation �t
Present? Yes {' No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to
or
Sampling Point; L P
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loci Texture Remarks
e-5 &YR 5E14 R 5 7.15YIR 5N tt PZ m
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic 03)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
_ Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (38) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 148)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
L tjC i-. jAir-rc (sags Adm.-. P re Se, ,fit
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

WETLAND
_ �DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Proiect/Site: -Ba�c t�_aw City/County: WrUIQN� ' Sampling Date: E5'
Applicant/Owner:�0:� -C, ��Gs State: �Sr— Sampling Point: V? Z
Investigator(s): AV14 4- 1410 Section, Township, Range:,
Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): ncivy Local relief (concave, convex, none): On +c^ Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLgkq 13t2 Lat: '� ®�®I �S Long: L3 (0 Datum: N001156
Soli Map Unit Name: OcAg!�je c { va w NWI classification:t-1 Chi
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _L No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation J Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
ct ItteuAny nI: Fird )IM S - Attach site mao showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Y No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _X_ No within a Wetland? Yes 1_ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _-,,X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators.
Secondatxlndicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
— Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_. True Aquatic Plants (1314)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
�C High Water Table 02)
^ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (B10)
is 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 Soils (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 (131)
_
3( Iron Deposits (85)
_,_, Geomorphic Position (D2)
inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_
Y Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): i
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): C
Saturation Present? Yes_ No
Depth (inches): f)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
�t
�t'1C�t`C€e�141`""u ft�- 1,�.S���C� ��-�d`�s•ttiGxElti, �.,t..+Ytf_ �+E►E�.'sf�S"-"
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ts3 ) % Cover Species? Status
Sampling Point: b?'2
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: i (A/B)
Prevalence index worksheet:
7.
= Total Cover Tota! % Cover of: Multiply bv:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: 0 B L species x 1 =
FJ FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size: )
1.'rrimks t��, a FAC species x 3 =
2 FACU species x 4 =
3 UPL species x5=
4 Column Totals: (A) (B)
17
'Z = Total Cover
50% of total cover:_ 20% of total cover: 65.94
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 )
1.
7
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) }
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
,X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is S3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DISH), regardless of
height,
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
M) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
201% of total cover:
— Woody vine –All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
!emarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Yes_ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence
Sampling Point: W2
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
p-Z.i& leyk !Fa q5-7.5yg .5fZe= _ _ L pL i.�:casY;
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
MS=Masked
_ Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (178)
Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
t eVtXc4�'tl+�a.�'g J� d"VLY� �'c.. c4)'S Gds 'Pre-%@gWA-.
on: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Y* No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: 1P0 -+_r VM4 City/County, h _ Sampling Date:, 15' 31.1(0
Applicantlowner: 0_6A l'lo.*Ath. Hbrue.5 State: WC, Sampling Point: 1PP3
investigator(s): AV14 w Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): , r)oti!C Local relief (concave, convex, none): f'aii°9tli,3Slope (%):42
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): tALQR 034 Lat: ®l �� d Long: -80. CP89150W® Datum: Nor IB
Soil Map Unit Name: n c Ctow` tarxs v t NWI classification: b.11 PC
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes -- No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ No
Are Vegetation . Sail or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: 'f-
emarks cL �NAxi A c_ t& n" we care
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that appy)
_ Surface Sol] Cracks (B6)
A. Surface Water (Al)
r True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_. Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
X High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
V Drift Deposits (B3)
— Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
^_
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
d1
Depth (inches): )
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): Q3
Saturation Present? Yes, No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
�
J
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

xrGrrGTATtnnl 157.u,r Stratal -- lisp scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DES
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
emarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
-15 ;I� --�- +L& r,�+�ltit4 1 ,� b 1 i�_, 'sr'V�Or 1.15A4{_•µ
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Piot size: -�Cz) }
a Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
FAC: (A)
1
That Are OHL, FACW, or
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OHL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
6•
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7•
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
5o% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
OHL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: � .��
( }!
)OgL_
FAC species x 3 =
1 t
�.� u Sft rry aka,
'
�
FACU species x 4 =
2 &MInuWc3 t1Ct4CCr"Q-
_� _
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8,
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover
4 _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
1 20% of total cover:
0
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: s )
'y
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. au -M UA, sd'`eW
2.. VuJoUS 9�6ra"*'&
15 Y mak
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3, ifpuG C&49f tQ -S
— 1`_ K !
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
10—
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6,
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7
height.
8•
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
y
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
10
11.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
(.ke = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
&D 20% of total cover: 12
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ' )
height,
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
emarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
-15 ;I� --�- +L& r,�+�ltit4 1 ,� b 1 i�_, 'sr'V�Or 1.15A4{_•µ
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Lfa711
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc Texture Remarks
t— 3 rreyrf. 6z!1 I — —
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
r Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
— Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Auced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL -Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'.
_ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Depleted Dark Surface (177) — other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
tron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'indicators of hydrophydc vegetation and
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
ltt '.m�0C3IV
L "'Vi, %ViLS Curl,px5eAkzt
Hydric Sal Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -- Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: APt�oa[4 City/County: Sampling Date: J'31' 14
ApplicanVOwner: itAWK*AN: tc.. Hbros i:S State: WG Sampling Pont: 1AR JA
Investigator(s): AV14 # 14w Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hlilslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): rl� Slope (9a): ` 2 -
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): PALgliq 13(t Lat: ®2�1 �J ® Long: — S0. oM5B60 Datum: NIA
Soli Map Unit Name: &&Uft ee ._ .a e>� .911115 r In. 1 ba Ems _ NWl classification: N/ fir-
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_ No (if no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology signlFicandy disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ No
Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophydc Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ---X_____ within a Wetland? Yes No f _
Wedand Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
4A
HYDROLOGY
Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required;
check all that apply)
^ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
— True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
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 Solis (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C9)
_^ Algal Mat or Crust (BA)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
— Geomorphic Pos€don (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_^ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available:
Remarks:
�►1t�.-LC..�tsr� t9� u.��'�fs.aF.�
3
�y�.� �_. ��"3..
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
6. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7• height.
B. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 In. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 it (1
10 m) tall.
11, Herb -- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
Z>Z = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover: ILQ— 20% of total cover: Lo 4
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 f[ in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 6 _) hei ht
i.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 2011. of total cover:
rs here or on a separate sheet.)
bJC �¢- erVlL r,�F:YoMt ii[A_r.�,-.=k'. •F'Fz�;.<�xti._�`fL�i i"s 1 fjc., t;f' 'rh+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: SIM )
Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2•�w1fr�ttl �a neo
I
Total Number of Dominant
3.�rwnt�x �axcs�itt-
10 FACILt
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species '7 (,►
2
4.
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: , _I. (AIB)
G.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multfoly b
50% of total cover
Total Cover
2 15 20% of total cover: 10
OBL species x 1 -
Ming/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:_
)
FACW species X2=
0-mm
5 y C-ACLt
FAC species x 3 =
1. w.
2 ( teat cf. 0 0Ck.
-
_ gCU
FACU species x4=
d�rrieq
�� ;�
UPL species x 5 =
3
4 (' t1 rt �� t^�itn ��
i N C,
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.`Tu vp&c u5 Vii inia 0.
N
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8•
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9•
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0t
50% of total cover:
= Total Cover
15' 20% of total cover: i
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
y
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
PAC
n/
t
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. 1 t44shumo virl --*I so—
FA n
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4•�� ui�ih,i�n �craT+�s,^{was—
NIACIA
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
6. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7• height.
B. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9. than 3 In. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 it (1
10 m) tall.
11, Herb -- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
Z>Z = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover: ILQ— 20% of total cover: Lo 4
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 f[ in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 6 _) hei ht
i.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 2011. of total cover:
rs here or on a separate sheet.)
bJC �¢- erVlL r,�F:YoMt ii[A_r.�,-.=k'. •F'Fz�;.<�xti._�`fL�i i"s 1 fjc., t;f' 'rh+
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
t
Sampling Point: �� �'�°€
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist Color (moist) TYoe Loc Texture Remarks
0 ~20 4.5 Yyg a lam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type;
Depth (inches):
RM=Reduced
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
— Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147) unless disturbed or problematic.
�f1c�1�Cs �f� c .R"ic tfS atc Gb%'f-A.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No t' _
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont– Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: OH-ey Raj
City/County:ynian Sampling Date: 641 - /
Applicant/Owner: ^�L fl�``�S
State: NL Sampling Point: 010S'"
Investigator(s): AV 11
Section, Township, Range:k/1_5kt6_.. 0,}°�'
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): r''
Subregion (LRR or viLRK): 1 3 6 Lat:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): U
3 S • U 2-0/7-S Long: - SO, 6 8gS o Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cil,e-I.- CA Si rIfl
- � - sI r
-- Z'°� NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for
this time of year? Yes > No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology
significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map
showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes l( No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
ocJ`` "' 1 s {patlt�,/t �'K a F a ^� ,c,tlS�rC f rJ1c
p1� d G�
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Pattems (1310)
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 Soils (C6)
,_, Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Vlslble 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 (87)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC-Neutraf Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth
(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
/Iln mdtc,- foiss
a W�� k7r.W-j 6
Yo
-oW fa,t,fir
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) --• Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 f t- ) % Cover Species? Status
1. --is n(JAC 40 60
2. e l rs ,(-C" J .,jc(, s —��� N flit
3. L) H fJ�D 5' ttt�
4. 1M�s �— /v 0
5.
7.
[, 7 = Total Cover f
50% of total cover: 7' 0% of total cover:
SapringlShrubStratum (Plot size: t Sok l
1. L w SNS t -e-5c Yo
4.
7.
8.
l = Total Cover 2
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 f )
2. o 5 h1r 5-. �. c•�h��ures S N
4
5
I U 6 = Total Cover
50% Mal cover: °f0 20% of total cover: 2 V
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: [[ )
2,'C C a't i --if -n c C
Sampling Point: QfS`s
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species �(
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC; (AIB)
Total % Cover of:
Multi& by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UP species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
he present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplingfShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
5• Vegetation
t J = Total Cover Present? Yes _A No
501/. of total cover 20% of total cover..-3--
Remarks:
over:_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:
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) I/._ T e Loc
Texture Remarks
v Zv �iC s 6
lQw..
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A1o) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
146) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147,14B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
— 2 cm Muck (A-10) (LRR N)
u_
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_, Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F6)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,14B)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbrlc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No,---V—
Depth (Inches):
Remarks:
I
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

Addington Crossing
Attachments
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
ATTACHMENT E:
Photopage (Photographs A -J)

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Attachment E - Photoaaee CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Photograph A. View of Perennial RPW Stream A, facing downstream.
Photograph B. View of Perennial RPW Stream B, facing upstream.

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Attachment E - Photooaee CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Photograph C. View of Perennial RPW Stream C (Prince Mill Creek), facing upstream.
Photograph D. View of Perennial RPW Stream D (Davis Mine Creek), facing upstream.

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Attachment E - Photoaa¢e CWS Project No. 2016-4039
in

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Attachment E - Photoaa¢e CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Photograph G. View of Seasonal RPW Stream F, facing downstream.
Photograph 11. View of Seasonal RPW Stream G, facing upstream.
iv

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Attachment E - Photoaaee CWS Proiect No. 2016-4039
Photograph K. View of Wetland CC, facing northwest.
Photograph L. View of Pond A, facing southwest.
vi

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Attachment E - Photooa¢e CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Photograph M. View of Pond B, facing northwest.
Photograph N. View of Pond C, facing southwest.
Vii

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT F:
SHPO Response Letter
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
June 23, 2017
Brian Johnson
CalAdandc Homes
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Develop Addington Crossing Residential Development, Intersection of Potter Road and
Waxhaw Indian Trail Road, Wesley Chapel, CWS 2016-4039, Union County, ER 17-1049
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for your letter of May 30, 2017, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmentalenvironmental.reviewna ncdcr g v. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6f(Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT G:
NCN H P Data Review Report
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039

ROI COOPER
Goti entor
I -. C;_
SUSI H. H_ _A11LTO\
Vi e. 1 era rl
Natural and
Cultural Resources
NCNHDE-3104
March 10, 2017
Caleb Sullivan
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
RE: Project is for a proposed subdivision.; Addington Crossing 2016-4039
Dear Caleb Sullivan:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Matthew Hebb at matthew.hebb(cDncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
-Y'--`Nothing Compares! -f
State of North Carolina I Department or Natural and Cultural Resources I Natural Heritage Program
121 w_ Jones Street I Raleigh, NC 27603
1651 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1651
www.nrnhP-om 1919-707-8107

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Project is for a proposed subdivision.
Project No. Addington Crossing 2016-4039
March 10, 2017
NCNHDE-3104
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater 115 Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell 2011-06-09 E 3 -Medium Species of Endangered G2 S3
Bivalve Concern
Natural Areas Documented Within Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating
CTB/Twelvemile Creek Aquatic Habitat n/a (Not Applicable) C4 (Moderate)
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve, org/content/helo. Data query generated on March 10, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Project is for a proposed subdivision.
Project No. Addington Crossing 2016-4039
March 10, 2017
NCNHDE-3104
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name
Common Name
Last
Element Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation
Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date
Rank
Freshwater 115 Villosa vaughaniana
Carolina Creekshell
2011-06-09
E 3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G2
S3
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater Fish 4660 Etheostoma collis
Carolina Darter
1994-06-13
E 3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G3
S3
Concern
Concern
Vascular Plant 15141 Rhus michauxii
Michaux's Sumac
1794-07-21
H 5 -Very
Endangered
Endangered
G2G3
S2
Low
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name
Representational Rating
Collective Rating
CTB/Twelvemile Creek Aquatic Habitat
n/a (Not Applicable)
C4 (Moderate)
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at bffps://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on March 10, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-3104: Project is for a proposed subdivision.
March 10, 2017
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Page 4 of 4
1:24,577
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km
Sources: Esn, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, invernenl P Carp., GESCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, Geo9ase, IGN, Kadasler NL, Ordnance Survey, Esn Japan.
METI, Esn China (Hong Kong),-Autopo. Mapnrylndia, ® OpenStmetMap
oontdbutors, and the GIS User Community

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT H:
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Plan Sheets: Proposed Impacts S1 -S4

SITE TABLE
# OF LOTS: 51 Project Limits (104 ac.)
PONDS:
1 - DRY DETENTION BASIN #1 E �6�J/ / �� J
2 - DRY DETENTION BASIN #2
3 - DRY DETENTION BASIN #3+
4 - DRY DETENTION BASIN #4
EXISTING WETLANDS
30' STREAM SETBACKS
100 -YEAR FEMA = Eo
FLOODPLAIN
�� \� �/ ��✓ Pond Impact (Attachment 1)-
E Pond Impact 01 AK
40.\
\\ E\\\ Sheet 2: Stream Crossings
x\x \ \ i - Stream Impacts S1, S2, S3, and S4
\\\\\\� I� 11l\\!�� �E acs/S-TRd l g
cid
\\ C E _V/ 0 1 I
/GiTTFRR
Jack -and -Bore sewer crossings '
(3 crossings total)
- No impact
E\
0 250 500 1000i Eli
1 INCH = 500 FEET
C�
w
LL
m v
CL
m
w�
LU
a�
zE
Z$
0 �
c" a
u$
z
O Qz
m O
_ o LUCO LU Q
XU
w = 0
U-) O =
I—
z z U 0
O z J
U� g a
J U Q
2
zQ U
U
Cr O LU
O 0 LU
Q

98—
97, Stream B I� C
i 59 mm act TYpe: Fill (Tem orarY
-595 s
59 5933 _ Structures such as pump around) - = - 'y90_ W
Impact Length: 20 If
r o
Permanent: No
C 0
I OD
-
--� rnrn _—\ X585 Q Q
IAIV. 7N 584,3 -- -- srn � TSA 2 - J
> O
S8 60' STM �� INV, OUT=580.50 p01
/ 8
1+00 ' — — -- z m w U
_ Al U) _
O ZU _
O
-- a
\ Z
,PERENNIAL �� ��4 _ — U (n
STREAM N - cfl- �— — L,+�S�1 RfR—RAP= 0 Z w
° -
-- — U
�S2: StreamzgU
Impact Type: Concrete '�= - S3: Stream B -
U) O0 U U
LU
LO - — Impact Type: Riprap z
- -- Impac Length: 10 If (5 If at both _ - Turndown S1: Stream B Impact Length: 25 If o
_ Impact Type: Culvert permanent: Yes a
ends of the culvert) Impact Length: 90 If -
_ Permanent: Yes Permanent: Yes — — — — — — —
T N
LL
PLAN VIEW u o � N
N
0 15 30 60 z
z
LU F
Not— JIIIIEr w w
Q r =
1 INCH = 30 FEET
a 0 m Ln

6001
5901
5801
II O o
m S
!� W ..
V
CO
m
d
mM
LijWz $
o€��E
a^°°
U$ 36
Z
O Qz
H J
O
D U7 Q
mLU U
O =
Ln U =
O z U O
Uz
p z LU
Q a a
Q Z
w
In O Q U
H >-
U w
Z -J
V7
D �
Q
M
o
J N
U o E
0
z O
U Z
W F
wW
O F- W
a p m N
INLET
CB( DCB 600 OUTLET
....... ..............
OF SELMA
:......
.°D.. . �o .............
:•:
'DRIVE.............�I.. �Q .F.- ..
.............oSTA:
.......... ..
p
1+30.87 0 N N7Wf'
Z7
.. ... rf.O PYO
W p W4N
N..... 0.Ujpm.
........ O.........
W Wp.WLO�
*U
...................
600
F- � U) Lo
W
W�F�
m W m
:>6Zlz??
U� jQH _~Zz00
TWO>.�,........��.........0.
QEW.O.>.>...................
...........
U tq x 0 Z ?
U rn 0 U V? U U) W (.5
...................... .......
PROP. GRADE
....... .......... ....... ......... ..........
..........
...:...... ....
......... 23.8 L.F:.. ..; ..... ............... .................
;............
24" 0.60%
............................ ...............
..................................
6" WL
590
Inv= 593.37
HEADWALL AN
S2
WLNGWALLS... ...........
:90:00 T
................. .
6Q @ 4.70 0 .... ; .
Inv=583.12
90.00 L.F.:
�_�...:.........
60". .....:............ HE
3.20%.......
D WALL,AND WINGWALLS , .
—�� �
---�°
_ —;_, ��.
580
EX. rL S1 �7
ELEV. AT G E=583.00 ;
----------------
:...
CON ET
....
CLASS I R1P'RAP
TU DOWN—CO
E EV. AT GRADE=580.12
ETE
..............................................................................
TURN[) 1V :.......... .
S2: Stream B
Impact Type: Concrete Turndown O O U
Impact Length: 10 If (5 If at both ends of the W U- w
culvertS3: Stream B
iO "' S1: Stream B °'
(0 oo Impact Type: Riprap
Permanent: Yes co M Impact Type: Culvert
Impact Length: 25 If
Impact Length: 90 If Permanent: Yes
Permanent: Yes
1+00 2+00
0 15 30 60
PROFILE VIEW
1 INCH = 30 FEET
6001
5901
5801
II O o
m S
!� W ..
V
CO
m
d
mM
LijWz $
o€��E
a^°°
U$ 36
Z
O Qz
H J
O
D U7 Q
mLU U
O =
Ln U =
O z U O
Uz
p z LU
Q a a
Q Z
w
In O Q U
H >-
U w
Z -J
V7
D �
Q
M
o
J N
U o E
0
z O
U Z
W F
wW
O F- W
a p m N

Z
Z
II
Ln
Do
A
w
�10
rs
C
Ln
� I
D I \
3 l
L
p
o
rn a z
o Ln
Z
<D O
r �
z to D
II
In m 0
00 0 m
N 0 II
CD 0
rn
rn
rn
Z
D
O <
NO
(-)z
z
m < u
m rn v
`o
r
N
OC
z
Ln
� I
X I
rn
D i
30 m
I o
n
I m
. I y 0
r �
ZLn Ln D
II
00 0
00 Z m
o < o 1
Ul
N ry ID
Z 91
11 00
In V
OD
W
r
N
PROJECT NO. CALATL1603 STREAM CROSSING carwno
DATE: 06/16/2017 ADDINGTON CROSSING SUBDIVISION Shaping the Future
BY: MAH CHARLOTTE
CALATLANTIC HOMES 9800 SOUTHERN PINE BLVD., SLUE I
°iARL NC 28273 TEL: [phone]
SHEET NO. 4 OF 4 WESLEY CHAPEL, NORTH CAROLINA
www.mrdno.com

Addington Crossing
Attachments
ATTACHMENT I:
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Pond Drainage and Stream Restoration Plan

Pond Drainage and Stream Restoration Plan
Addington Crossing
Wesley Chapel, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
June 27, 2017
CAROLINA
WETLAND SERVICES
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
Gregg Antemann, PWS

Addington Crossing
Stream Restoration Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Site Assessment
Site Description
Bankfull Verification
Geomorphic Assessment
Pond A
Ecological Reference Reach
Ecosystem Enhancement Plan
Project Approach
Dam Removal
Ecological Uplift
Monitoring Plan
Success Criteria
Channel Stability
Photo documentation
Ecological Function
Planting Plan
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
9
10
10
10
10
10
List of Figures
Figure A — Ecosystem Enhancement Location
Figure B — Stream Restoration Plan Sheet: Overview
Figure C — Stream Restoration Plan Sheet: Stabilization
Figure D — Stream Restoration Plan Sheet: Profile/Cross-section
List of Tables
Table 1 — Field Measured and Projected Bankfull Area by Reach
Table 2 — Summary of Existing Conditions (Pond)
Table 3 — Summary of Existing Conditions (Reference Reach)
Table 4 — Proposed Channel Dimensions in feet
Table 5 — Proposed Stream Reach Data Summary
Table 6 — Proposed Planting Plan, Addington Crossing
Appendix A — Regional Curves
Appendix B — Reference Reach Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section
Appendix C — Reference Reach Pebble Counts
Appendix D — Existing Conditions Longitudinal Profile and Cross Sections
2of11

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Introduction
The Addington Crossing site is approximately 104 acres in extent and is located east of
the Beulah Church Road and Potter Road intersection in Wesley Chapel, North Carolina
(Figure 1 of the Pre -Construction Notification). An old degraded earthen dam, that
impounds Perennial RPW Stream C (LIT to Price Mill Creek) and its adjacent wetlands,
is in need of removal due to a dam safety concern. CalAtlantic Homes proposes to
remove the dam and enhance the ecosystem of the impounded area. The removal of
this dam will involve draining the pond and removal of portions of the existing dam and
restoration of the stream it impounded. Stream channel characteristics above and below
the pond were surveyed and identified using the Rosgen Level II Classification methods.
An ecological reference stream reach was identified to use as justification for the design
assumptions. This dam removal plan includes a current conditions geomorphic
assessment, designs, plans for the restoration and ecosystem enhancement of
Perennial RPW Stream C, and a monitoring plan to show Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27
ecological uplift requirements.
Existing Conditions
Site Assessment
A site visit and geomorphic survey was performed by CWS scientist Daniel Roberts,
Staff Scientist II, and Kerry Wright, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT), on April 11
and 17, 2017. The survey included a longitudinal profile (-200 ft.) and cross-sectional
surveys of Pond A, and the downstream ecological reference segment of Perennial RPW
Stream C (three cross-sections: 2 riffles and 1 pool). The geomorphic assessment of
Perennial RPW Stream C also included substrate sampling (Wolman reach -wide pebble
count), Bank Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI) analysis, and photographic documentation.
This data was used to classify Perennial RPW Stream C using the Rosgen Level II
system. The locations of the stream cross-sections are shown in Figure A, attached. A
vegetative survey was conducted to describe on-site vegetation and aid in restoring the
riparian buffer and forest.
Site Description
The Addington Crossing dam removal and ecosystem enhancement surrounding area
consists of undeveloped forested areas, maintained open areas, and residential
subdivisions. Typical on-site vegetation consists of American holly (Ilex opaca), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), elderberry
(Sambucus nigra), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra), tulip poplar (Lhlodendron tulipifera),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
3of11

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2016-4039
marsh dayflower (Murdannia keisak), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Nepalese
browntop (Microstegium vimineum), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), sawtooth blackberry
(Rubus argutus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), spotted ladysthumb (Polygonum persicaria),
and various sedges (Carex spp.).
Bankfull Verification
Indicators of bankfull levels were identified in the field and included scour lines,
floodplain benches, and the backs of depositional bars. The observed bankfull
cross-sectional areas of the reference reach were verified using the drainage area for
each reach, and the North Carolina Piedmont regional curves (Table 1 and Appendix A).
Just one of the observed bankfull cross-sectional areas fall within the 95% confidence
interval for the Rural Piedmont North Carolina regression line. This is most likely
because the flow of the reference reach is controlled by an off-site pond. The rural curve
was used because because less than 15% of watershed surface area is impervious.'
Locations of cross sections were chosen at areas that represent the overall character of
the reach. Cross-sectional measurements were not taken within two bankfull widths of
bedrock outcrops or other in -stream structures for consistency with current methodology.
In -stream structures alter the flow and velocity of the channel resulting in the presence of
non -representative bankfull indicators. The cross sections were chosen to be the most
representative within each reach, with the least amount of existing disturbance.
Table 1. Field Measured and Projected Bankfull Area by Reach
Drainage area measured from USGS StreamStats 4.0.
Values in this column were calculated using the urban regression equation in Appendix
A.
Geomorphic Assessment
Perennial RPW Stream C originates off-site from a pipe along the northern project
boundary. The flow of Perennial RPW Stream C is influenced by an off-site pond.
On-site Wetland CC and Pond A have direct connection to Perennial RPW Stream C.
Perennial RPW Stream C flows southeast through the southern portion of the property
for approximately 1,398 linear feet. The assessment area involved Pond A and
downstream ecological reference reach of Perennial RPW Stream C. Pond A
longitudinal profile and cross-sections, and Perennial RPW Stream C longitudinal profile,
cross-sections, Rosgen classification and Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) are
discussed below.
'USGS StreamStats 4.0. httl3s://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/streamstats/. Accessed 5/2/17
4of11
Average Field
NC Piedmont
Drainage
Measured
Calculated Urban
Reach No.
Area
Bankfull Area
Bankfull Area
(sq. mile)*
(sq. feet)
(sq. feet)**
Reference
0.19
4.34
7.23
Reach
Drainage area measured from USGS StreamStats 4.0.
Values in this column were calculated using the urban regression equation in Appendix
A.
Geomorphic Assessment
Perennial RPW Stream C originates off-site from a pipe along the northern project
boundary. The flow of Perennial RPW Stream C is influenced by an off-site pond.
On-site Wetland CC and Pond A have direct connection to Perennial RPW Stream C.
Perennial RPW Stream C flows southeast through the southern portion of the property
for approximately 1,398 linear feet. The assessment area involved Pond A and
downstream ecological reference reach of Perennial RPW Stream C. Pond A
longitudinal profile and cross-sections, and Perennial RPW Stream C longitudinal profile,
cross-sections, Rosgen classification and Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) are
discussed below.
'USGS StreamStats 4.0. httl3s://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/streamstats/. Accessed 5/2/17
4of11

Addington Crossing
Stream Restoration Plan
Pond A
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Pond A is approximately 0.44 acres in extent. Wetland CC and Pond A are the result of
impoundment of Perennial RPW Stream C (Figure A, attached). As the identified area
is a pond, the Rosgen Level II classification does not apply, however, a longitudinal
profile and cross-sections of Pond A were obtained to discern the slope and area as an
aid to the layout and grade control necessary to restore the channel. A Wolman
Reach -Wide Pebble Count was not taken as substrate was mucky throughout the pond.
The average drainage area for this pond equals approximately 0. 18 square miles (51
acres)' and channel slope averages 0.0423 ft/ft from the upper end of the pond to the
base of the earthen dam. Mean bankfull width and depth for this pond are 89.76 feet
and 1.55 feet, respectively. The average flood -prone width for this pond is 107.68 feet.
This pond displays an average entrenchment ratio of 1.17. These data are summarized
in Table 2, shown below. Photographs of Pond A are included in Attachment E of the
Pre -Construction Notification.
Table 2 - Summary of Existing Conditions (Pond)
Parameter
Existing
Condition
Pond
Pond
Length of Reach Studied ft.
384
Channel Dimension (ft)
Average Bankfull Width (ft.)
89.76
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft.)
1.55
Average Width/Depth Ratio
73.64
Average Bankfull Area (sq. ft.)
146.26
Average Bankfull Maximum Depth
(ft.
2.06
Average Width Flood -prone Area ft.
107.68
Average Entrenchment Ratio
1.17
Ecological Reference Reach
Geomorphic and Stability Assessment
Approximately 202 linear feet of Perennial RPW Stream C immediately downstream of
Pond A was utilized as a reference reach (Figure A). The Rosgen Level II classification
for the reference reach was identified as B5 based on slight to moderate entrenchment
and width to depth ratios. This reach exhibits substrate consisting of medium sand (D50
= 0.485 mm). The average drainage area for this reach is approximately 0. 19 square
miles (121.6 acres). The channel slope averages 0.0296 ft/ft, and sinuosity averages
1.16 ft/ft. Mean bankfull width and depth for this reach are 8.54 feet and 0.49 feet,
respectively. The field measured average bankfull cross-sectional area for this reach is
4.34 sq. feet. The average flood -prone area width for the reference reach is
approximately 15.65 feet. The BEHI index for this reach is Moderate (26) due to
moderate bank height ratio, moderate surface protection, and medium root density.
These data are summarized in Table 3 on the next page. Photographs of the reference
'USGS StreamStats 4.0. https://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/streamstats/. Accessed 5/1/17.
5of11

Addington Crossing
Stream Restoration Plan
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
reach are included in Attachment E of the Pre -Construction Notification.
Table 3 — Summary of Existing Conditions (Reference
Reach
Parameter
Existing Condition
Reach
Reference Reach
Length of Reach (ft.)
202.5
Channel Dimension
Average Bankfull Width (ft.)
8.54
Mean Bankfull Depth ft.
0.49
Average Width/Depth Ratio
22.31
Average Bankfull Areas . ft.
4.34
Average Width Flood -prone Area ft.
15.65
Average Entrenchment Ratio
2.22
Max Pool Depth ft.
1.38
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft.)
22.5
Channel Pattern
Sinuosity 1
1.16
Channel Profile
Valley Slope (ft./ft.)
0.0115
Water Surface Slope ft./ft.
0.01145
Riffle Slope ft./ft.
0.02968
Channel Materials
Bed Material Distribution
Material Size (mm)
d50
0.485
Rosgen Stream Type
B5
Ecosystem Enhancement Plan
Project Approach
In North Carolina, stream restoration and enhancement are defined in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines Report, dated April 2003, and prepared by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers —
Wilmington District (USACE).3 While these guidelines are not required to be met for this
project, their methodologies were utilized in designing and measuring aquatic resource
enhancement of the system.
CWS developed a stream design for the removal of Pond A and restoration of Perennial
RPW Stream C based on existing channel conditions of downstream structures (Figures
B and C, attached). This design will improve the goals of the Addington Crossing project
and enhance future water quality by removing stagnant stratified substrate, increasing
the quality of epifaunal substrate, increasing the health and diversity of suitable aquatic
habitats, and enhancing the riparian plantings. The old pond bed will be filled and
3 North Carolina Stream Mitigation Guidelines. 2003.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ab4ccad4-5cbe-45f3-979f-ab3fe35d2l a1 &groupld=61581
6of11

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2016-4039
planted with native riparian species. Typical cross sectional dimensions will be based on
the existing cross sectional dimensions of the reference reach (Figure D and Appendix
B, attached). A longitudinal profile was developed for the restored stream to tie-in to the
existing channel at a logical downstream location (Figure D and Appendix B, attached).
Dam Removal
CWS will utilize a diversion pipe to work in the dry and apply other erosion and sediment
control techniques to minimize sediment escape from the site during construction.
These techniques include employing coir fiber logs within the channel bed immediately
downstream of the construction area. These logs are meant to temporarily prevent
downstream sediment migration and will be removed once the channel has been
stabilized with matting.
Ecological Uplift
The ecological value of Pond A is currently very limited. This shallow impoundment is
filled with algae, has a stagnant stratified substrate filled with methane, and is limited in
habitat diversity and biodiversity. Removing the dam and restoring the stream system
will provide an overall ecological uplift to the ecosystem by providing diverse habitat for a
variety of aquatic species and improve water quality. A biological assessment of the
pond and ecological reference reach revealed a low variety and abundance of species
utilizing the pond, while a high abundance and variety of species were utilizing Perennial
RPW Stream C. The pond contained mostly algae, water striders, and one species of
diptera larva. Canadian geese nested in a wrecked boat in the pond, but foraged in the
abuting wetlands. The ecological reference reach contained a variety of diptera,
ephemeroptera, and trichoptera larva, fish, tadpoles, amphibians, and a northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon).
The impoundment of Perennial RPW Stream C will be enhanced through the
construction of narrow bankfull benches, laying back of banks to a 2:1 slope or flatter,
and the installation of in -stream structures to improve the profile of the channel. A
moderately sinuous channel pattern will be designed through the thalweg of the pond.
The remaining previously ponded area will be planted with riparian vegetation and serve
as a flood prone benches and potential wetland complex. The unimpounded channel
with wide flood prone benches will decrease shear stress within the channel and will
reduce downstream bank erosion and sediment input. Cross -vanes will also be used, as
necessary to provide vertical channel stability. Live stake woody vegetation will be used
to promote bank stability on the outside of meander bends.
The restored channel reach is designed to have a profile and dimension similar to the
downstream reach, however it has been designed with added sinuosity. The restored
stream will have similar channel stability and dimensions to the reference reach, as well
as provide an uplift of aquatic function by providing a higher quality riparian buffer by
improving access to the floodplain, adding riparian habitat, restoring riparian wetland
connectivity, reducing thermal pollution, and returning the system to a more natural
environment. The improvements to the impounded ecosystem are designed to minimize
7of11

Addington Crossing
Stream Restoration Plan
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
downstream erosion, sediment accumulation, and scouring by redirecting flow and
reducing shear stress during high flow events.
Stream Design
A stream design was developed for the impounded portions of Perennial RPW Stream C
based on the existing downstream conditions of the stream. Figure C in the Stream
Restoration Plan Sheets shows typical cross-sections for riffle and pool sections of the
proposed stream design. The dimensions of the proposed new channel are given in
Table 4 (shown below). The proposed channel pattern and profile are shown in the
attached Stream Restoration Plan Sheets 1-3. Table 5 summarizes the proposed stream
reach data and is shown below.
Table 4: Proposed Channel Dimensions in feet.
Table 5 — Proposed Stream Reach Data Summary
Parameter
Rosgen
Width of
Bankfull
Mean
Width/Depth
Bankfull
Max
Entrenchment
Feature
Stream
Floodprone
Width
Bankfull
Ratio
Area
Depth
Ratio
Channel Profile
T e
p
Area
Channel Materials
Depth
d50 0.485
Rosgen Stream Type B5
Riffle
B
15.65
6.95
0.38
22.31
3.22
0.75
1.89
Use
Pool
B
21.26
9.00
T0,73
12.36 T6.6
1.38
2.36
Use
Table 5 — Proposed Stream Reach Data Summary
Parameter
Proposed
Condition
New Length of Reach (ft.)
266
Channel Dimension
Average Bankfull Width (ft.) 8
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft.) 0.7
Average Width/Depth Ratio 17.75
Average Bankfull Areas . ft. 4.35
Average Width Flood -prone Area ft. 14
Average Entrenchment Ratio 2.2
Max Pool Depth ft. 1.0
Pool to Pool Spacing ft. 15-20
Pool Length ft. 10-15
Riffle Length ft.) 10-15
Channel Pattern
Sinuosity
1 1.2-1.5
Channel Profile
Valley Slope (ft./ft.) 0.04
Channel Slope ft./ft. 0.04
Channel Materials
Bed Material Distribution Material Size (mm)
d50 0.485
Rosgen Stream Type B5
8of11

Addington Crossing
Stream Restoration Plan
Monitoring Plan
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Mitigation is not required for this project, therefore, no USACE or NCDEQ official
monitoring program will be executed for this project. However, in order to ensure the
success of the proposed ecological uplift required by NWP 27, the proposed stream
restoration will be monitored every other year over a five year period beginning from the
completion of the work for a total of three monitoring events. Monitoring techniques and
practices will be adapted from the USACE and NCDEQ Stream Mitigation Guidelines for
North Carolina.4 Qualitative monitoring data for vegetation survival analysis, habitat
assessments, and channel stability analysis will be gathered and photo documented in
order to assess the variety of aquatic resource functions and services the restored
stream system will provide to the area.
The monitoring event will be conducted during mid -growing season. The report will
include photographs, rapid assessment vegetation survival counts, stream stability
documentation, and a short narrative describing current site conditions as they relate to
aquatic habitat function. Photographs will be taken from no fewer than four established
monitoring positions. The exact locations will be determined, marked with a stake, and
recorded with a GPS receiver in the field immediately following as -built completion and
used in the following monitoring event.
Upon completion of the project, an as -built channel survey will be conducted. The
survey will document the dimension, pattern, and profile of the restored channel. Three
permanent cross-sections will be established at an approximate frequency of one per 20
bankfull-width lengths (approximately one for every 90 feet of channel). The selection of
locations will include areas that may be predisposed for potential problems. The as -built
survey will also include photo documentation at all cross-sections and structures, a plan
view diagram, a longitudinal profile, vegetation information, and a pebble count for at
least all cross-sections. The longitudinal profile will include the entire length of the
restored stream channel.
Vegetation survival counts will be collected from established plots within each monitored
area. The plot locations will be randomly determined in the office using GIS. The plots
for stream restoration sites extend from the toe of bank to the furthest edge of the
outside planting zone. The total area of plots is equal to 10% of the specific restoration
site.
Monitoring data collected will include the following:
• reference photos (before and after)
• plant survival analysis
• channel stability analysis
• instream habitat analysis
' USACE 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
9of11

Addington Crossing June 27, 2017
Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2016-4039
Success Criteria
As described above, this guidance requires three forms of monitoring to evaluate the
success of the project; photo documentation, ecological function, and channel stability
measurements. These criteria will be used to evaluate success by considering the
following data:
Channel Stability
There should be insignificant change from the as -built dimensions to those measured in
the field during monitoring. If changes are present the changes should be minor and
represent an increase in stability (e.g. decreased width to depth ratio without a decrease
in entrenchment ratio).
• There should be little change from the as -built longitudinal profile.
• Pool/riffle spacing should remain fairly constant.
• Pools should not be filling in (aggradation) or riffles starting to change to pools
(degradation).
• Three permanent cross-sections should remain fairly stable.
• Pebble count should show a change in the size of bed material toward the
desired composition.
Photo documentation
• Channel aggradation or degradation
• Bank erosion
• Success of riparian vegetation
• Effectiveness of erosion control measures
• Presence or absence of developing instream bars (should be absent)
Ecological Function
• Health and survival of planted vegetation
Presence of instream habitat structures
Planting Plan
Natural coconut matting (coir matting), native seed mix, live stakes, and native plants will
be installed on both sides of the restored stream in various zones for bank stabilization
and erosion control. Vegetation species were chosen based on the existing plant
community and to add species diversity, particularly in the riparian zone.
Stream banks consist of three zones: 1) lower stream banks, 2) upper stream banks,
and 3) riparian buffer. Revegetation of the area directly adjacent to the restored channel
is especially important to prevent erosion, downstream sedimentation, and provides
important water quality and habitat services. Wetland plant species such as silky
dogwood (Comus amomum), river birch (Betula nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), and
soft rush (Juncus effusus) will be planted on the lower stream banks (Zone 1,
approximately 506 square feet [sf]). Black willow and clusters of soft rush will be planted
on outside stream bends for dense rooting and erosion control. Upper stream banks
10 of 11

Addington Crossing
Stream Restoration Plan
June 27, 2017
CWS Project No. 2016-4039
(Zone 2, approximately 782 so will be planted with other moisture -tolerant species such
as green ash and red maple. The riparian buffer (Zone 3, approximately 9,474 so will be
planted with species such as ironwood, slippery elm, and spicebush (Lindera benzoin).
All disturbed areas will be seeded with temporary and permanent native riparian and
wetland seed mixes, and stream banks will be matted with natural coconut matting.
Planting plan details are summarized in Table 6 (below).
Table 6. Proposed Planting Plan, Addington Crossing
Zone 1 - Lower Stream Banks (506 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Soft rush
Juncus effusus
Plug
3' 0. C.
100
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Live stake
2' 0. C.
45
Black willow
Salix nigra
Live stake
2' 0. C.
45
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
Live Stake
2' 0. C.
45
Zone 2 - Upper Stream Banks (782 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Bare root
4' 0. C.
20
River birch
Betula nigra
Bare root
4' 0. C.
20
Red maple
Acerrubrum
Bare root
4' 0. C.
20
Zone 3 - Riparian Buffer (9,474 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
One Gallon
8' O.C.
148
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
One Gallon
10' O.C.
25
Red maple
Acer rubrum
One Gallon
10' O.C.
25
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
One Gallon
10' O.C.
25
Slippery elm
Ulmus rubra
One Gallon
10' O.C.
25
11 of 11

SITE TABLE
Dam Removal
# OF LOTS: 51 ) I I I I
PONDS: -_ —� /i Location
1 - DRY DETENTION BASIN #1 63J
2 - DRY DETENTION BASIN #2 Ecosystem
3 _DRY DETENTION BASIN #3 Enhancement . Cross Section \ �,
4 DRY DETENTION BASIN #4 -
Location � Locations \\ `
EXISTING WETLANDS_ \ �g L \ \ U) } ' $
FE
30' STREAM SETBACKS
100-YEAR FEMA
FLOODPLAIN
1-4
m
/�M i _ * �` M i� 4 EX.NJ / X m U
/l` \ i/ 0. REA \�/ W U,)O =
Lr) j z
Lr) z�
/A 1 \\ O Q w
V k
g�r�\v U t-
J Cf �T 3�\\\\ 0 J a
77-11
Ecolo
Reference Reach w ical
° U }
/�/ Location o n
LU
s63VAS\� Q
4-)
0
R
0 250 500 1000
LU L-
LU
i
1 INCH = 500 FEET ,\\ _ /4. I �) a p m LL

STREAM RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. DRAIN POND USING PIPE DIVERSION. PIPE DIVERSION TO BE
SIZED APPROPRIATELY BASED ON TWO—YEAR STORM EVENT.
STAKE DIVERSION PIPE DOWN TO PREVENT MOVEMENT. PLACE
SANDBAGS OR RIPRAP AT OUTFALL AS VELOCITY DISSIPATOR.
ALLOW POND BED TO DRY OUT FOR SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE
BEGINNING STREAM RESTORATION WORK.
2. SEED ENTIRE POND BED WITH TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL
SEED MIX FOLLOWING DRAINING. SPREAD STRAW COVER OVER
SEED MIX.
3. COMPLETE STREAM RESTORATION WORK. REFER TO STREAM
RESTORATION PLAN SHEETS (FIGURES C AND D).
4. STABILIZE RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL BANKS AND RIPARIAN
CORRIDOR (REFER TO STREAM RESTORATION SHEET 3).
5. PLANT LIVE STAKES IN RIPARIAN CORRIDOR DURING
IMMEDIATE DORMANT VEGETATION SEASON (SEE STREAM
RESTORATION SHEET 3).
/Y r
XISTING WETLAND FRINGE ■,n�
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT ON FINAL
STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN ONCE THE POND HAS BEEN DRAINED. FINAL a
a
LOCATION FOR LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES AND BOULDERS SHALL BE N
DETERMINED BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS. w
w
2. NOT TO DISTURB HERBACEOUS WETLANDS ABOVE POND AREA. ACCESS TO z w a
POND - STREAM RESTORATION SITE NEEDS TO AVOID THE WETLANDS. ? Y
POND FOOTPR
EXISTING EARTHEN BERM
APPROX. 11.5 -FT. IN HEIGHT AND
45 -FT. IN WIDTH AT BASE OF POND
' „• ROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 0.3 -AC.
■•' 20 -FT. FROM EDGE OF RESTORATION CHANNEL
s �
-------------------
-
_____________ - _ _ _ _ GRADE 2:1 SLOPE
THROUGH EARTHEN BERM
FOR NEW STREAM
CHANNEL. DO NOT DISTURB
` . ♦ FORESTED EARTHEN BERM
o . ; BEYOND GRADING LIMITS.
■
•
\ \ 1 FLO
o"o 0,44111
1r11rII/IIIIIIII/I`1■■1■■11•I■■I■■I■11■■I■■I■■I■11■11■■I■■I■It■It■I■11■■I■■I■1i■■I■tl■■I■■I■■11111•1`••\ '` \\ X
III11■111111111...
■11111�•�`••••` \ \ \
XISTING UT—PRICE MILL CREEK
ABOVE POND EXISTING SPILLWAY
PROPOSED UT—PRICE MILL CREEK RESTORATION
CHANNEL APPROX. 266—LINEAR FEET IN LENGTH;
4% SLOPE
PROPOSED RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL TO TIE
TO EXISTING CHANNEL BELOW SPILLWAY
1,
z
Q �
M z
3"Jz
co W Z
w
1—I Z U U
O Z
Z J
LLLJ O
Q Vi
L7 W
0 a3
IGURE
20 0 10 20 40 60 T
GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET J{JC

SQUARE CUT LIVE STAKING - BANK STABILIZATION (N.T.S.)
BUDS (FACING UPWARD)
NOTESI
1. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE EVENLY SPACED 4 FEET APART.
LIVE CU TING? LIVE STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN UNTIL APPROXIMATELY % OF LIVE STAKE
(Y2'-Ofi' DIAMETER) 2-3 FEET IN IS WITHIN GROUND.
LENGTH 3. IF STARTER HOLE IS NEEDED, MINIMIZE AIR POCKET AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
ANGLE CUT 4. UTILIZE ON SITE TRANSPLANT MATERIALS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE OWNER.
30-45 DEGREES ONCE SOURCE OF TRANSPLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN HARVESTED, UTILIZE
LIVE STAKING.
NOTEi
STAKING MAY BE REQUIRED THROUGH
MATTING, ROCK, OR COMPACTED SOILS.
REQUIRE STARTER HOLE IF THE CASE.
LIVE STAKES
111= -III:
I
NORMAL DEPTH
-I I
r \l
TEMPORARY
SANDBAG I
DIVERSION. 3
TEMPORARY PIPE
DIVERSION - SIZED
TO CONVEY 2-YEAI
STORM FLOW.
STAKED DOWN AT
10 -FT INTERVALS.
MATTING LOCATION (N.T.S.)
NA GREEN SC150 BN
NATTTING FROM TOE
OF CHANNEL TO 5
FEET BEYOND
BANKFULL
NOTES- —EO CHANNEL TO, TRENCH MATTING TO A
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6
1) USE WOOD STAKES OR t
ES AND BACKFILL
ECOSTAKES (NOT METAL) FO pRGPosen
MATTING INSTALLED IN PUMP .A KI IIBANKFULL
AROUNDS OR IN THE WET.2) USE OF METAL STAPLES NA GREEN SC150 BNIS ACCEPTABLE WHEN
CONSTRUCTING IN THE DRY NA GREEN CI25 B
AND VEGETATION IS OUTSIDE GF REEN 1B'ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO BANKFULL TO TOP =1 AKES
DIVERTING WATER. OF FLOODPLAIN,
APPROX. a -FT WIDE 1DACOTAKES
■u■R •♦'■'R••R••R••(��yR•r(�� GRAPHIC SC FEET
.■••• STABILIZE NEWLY EXPOSED POND BOTTOM FROM
r �•�•••�•• BERM TO EDGE OF STREAM RIPARIAN CORRIDOR •
INCLUDING DISTURBED LIMITS WITH EROSION
�•
` CONTROL SEED MIX AND STRAW COVER.
•
`--—— — — — — —- i
-------------
8'
------ 8' WIDE AVERAGE ����- ���-- ��� ••
—BANKFULL CHANNEL
� •i
■
i �♦
- — — — — — — — — STREAM RIPARIAN CORRIDOR (-25'
WIDE) — EROSION CONTROL — — — TEMPORARY PIPE
DIVERSION OUTFALL
• MATTING, NATIVE PLANT SEEDING ONTO SANDBAG
.� - AND LIVE STAKES WITHIN RIPARIAN �.` VELOCITY DISSIPATOR
t• - CORRIDOR.MATTING BELOW
BANKFULL ELEVATION IN STREAM
�•,,,��� CHANNEL. ,��� ••`• FLOW DIRECTIO
C

TYPICAL PROPOSED RIFFLE CROSS—SECTION
Wbkf = 6.95 Dbkf = 0.3 Abkf = 21
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 13 20 25
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
D
g
/
m 6
5
0 4
3
2
1
0
4
3
LL =
1
TYPICAL PROPOSED POOL CROSS—SECTION
Wbkf = 9.0 Dbkf = 0.73 Abkf = 6.6
RADE UPPER STREAM BANK
STREAM DESIGN TABLE
1. 12' MIN. DIAMETER LOGS
POND WATER SURFACE,,DA:
TO 3:1 SLOPE OR FLATTER
FROM TWICE BANKFULL TO
EDGE OF PROJECT AREA
3. NAIL HEADER LOG TO
Wbkf. 8—FT
FROM TWICE BANKFULL TO
REBAR
ANKFULL
EDGE OF PROJECT AREA
Abkf: 4.35—FT
CLOTH TO TOP OF LOG AND
VADTH fi.95
2:1 SLOPE FROM BANKFU
k2:1 SLOPE
TO TWICE
FROM BA
BANKFULL
AND CHANNEL BED
TO TWICE 8ANKFULL
5. CUT 2'X 12' NORMAL FLOW
_
T.
Riffle Length: 10-15'
LOG
0 5 10 13 20 25
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
D
g
/
m 6
5
0 4
3
2
1
0
4
3
LL =
1
TYPICAL PROPOSED POOL CROSS—SECTION
Wbkf = 9.0 Dbkf = 0.73 Abkf = 6.6
30 - 0 5 Io 15 20 25 30
TYPICAL LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
RADE UPPER STREAM BANK
STREAM DESIGN TABLE
1. 12' MIN. DIAMETER LOGS
POND WATER SURFACE,,DA:
TO 3:1 SLOPE OR FLATTER
3. NAIL HEADER LOG TO
Wbkf. 8—FT
FROM TWICE BANKFULL TO
REBAR
EDGE OF PROJECT AREA
Abkf: 4.35—FT
CLOTH TO TOP OF LOG AND
BURY UPSTREAM END
ANKFULLWIDTH 9'
k2:1 SLOPE
TO TWICE
FROM BA
BANKFULL
AND CHANNEL BED
-
5. CUT 2'X 12' NORMAL FLOW
_
NOTCH IN TOP OF HEADER
Riffle Length: 10-15'
LOG
6. EMBED ENDS OF LOG VANES
EARTHEN BER
30 - 0 5 Io 15 20 25 30
TYPICAL LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
STREAM DESIGN TABLE
1. 12' MIN. DIAMETER LOGS
POND WATER SURFACE,,DA:
2. 12' MIN. LENGTH LOGS
3. NAIL HEADER LOG TO
Wbkf. 8—FT
FOOTER LOG USING ;'
REBAR
4. NAIL NON -WOVEN FILTER
Abkf: 4.35—FT
CLOTH TO TOP OF LOG AND
BURY UPSTREAM END
BENEATH ROCK CLUSTER
P—P Spacing: 15-20'
AND CHANNEL BED
-
5. CUT 2'X 12' NORMAL FLOW
_
NOTCH IN TOP OF HEADER
Riffle Length: 10-15'
LOG
6. EMBED ENDS OF LOG VANES
EARTHEN BER
IN STREAM BANKS
T1 ��
7. ANCHOR ENDS OF LOG
VANES WITH BALLAST
LOG - MINMUM Ir
BOULDER OR DUCK BILL
R. AVERAGE
ANCHORS MTN GALVANIZED
WADED TO TOP OF G AND LENGTHDIAMET
LO
CABLE ATTACHED
BURLED BELOW STREAM BED.
_
STREAM BED
ROCK CLUSTERS
NATURAL/NATIVE STONE
8'-12' MEDIAN DIAMETER
L1____�
9. ROCK CLUSTERS EMBEDDED
. CUJSIERS-L
BELOW CHANNEL BED
VOID WETLANDS
STREAM DESIGN TABLE
ABOVE POND,,EXISTING
POND WATER SURFACE,,DA:
120—AC.
Wbkf. 8—FT
Dmax: 1.0—FT
Abkf: 4.35—FT
W/D: 17.75
Slope: 4%
P—P Spacing: 15-20'
Pool Length: 10-15'
Riffle Length: 10-15'
Pool Wbkf: 9'
Riffle Wbkf: 6.95'
EARTHEN BER
XISTING BOTTOM OF PON
ATER SURFACE
TYPICAL PROPOSED STREAM
RESTORATION POOL TO POOL
SPACING AT 15-20' INTERVALS
POND PROFILE IS A DEPICTION BASED ON FIELD SURVEY DATA.
PROPOSED STREAM PROFILE NOT TO SCALE. LOCATION OF
PROPOSED IN -STREAM STRUCTURES IS TYPICAL ONLY.
TYPICAL PROPOSED LOG GRADE
CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE VATH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
CONTROL WITH ROCK CLUSTERS
ON FINAL STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN ONCE THE POND HAS
(RIFFLES) SPACED AT 20-25'
BEEN DRAINED. FINAL LOCATION FOR LOG GRADE CONTROL
STRUCTURES AND BOULDERS SHALL BE DETERMINED BASED ON
INTERVALS
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
0
U+SU 7+UU 1+5U Z+UU
STATION
2+50 3+00 3+50
TIE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO
EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL
AT TOE OF EARTHEN BERM
V)
Z
0
IN
U
W
to
I
0 ZHZ
� z
}
U '0_3
O Wz
A
U c 0
Z z U U
Q O> -C3
LJ ZJZZ,
Qw
Ga W
� Q3
0
OL
Ell
W
0
O
0
IGURE ND.
D

Appendix A
Regional Curves

oil
��■"�.S�C?ii ��5:��3i��S��.^liSO�ii�T�Ciiiii
mill
WE T -Ti -ball 0.63
60.
INN 3�e = 0.95
No �C■C: ii—■■ "Con ii
- � ■ lily ■■■���I � ■■■�=O1y 21.99X 11
1

Appendix B
Reference Reach Longitudinal Profile and Cross Sections

Reference Reach Longitudinal Profile
L
C:
0
c�
9
N
n
Distance along stream (ft)
• rw
ws
• BKF

Reference Reach Cross Section 1
N
C
0
Q
m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Horizontal Distance (ft)
o Ground Points
♦ Bankiull
Indicators
* Waiter Surface
Points

Reference Reach Cross Section 2
N
C
0
W
0 s 10 15 20 25 30
Horizontal Distance (ft)
o Ground Points
• Bankfull
Indicators
• Water Surface
Pants

Reference Reach Cross Section 3
7T
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (ft)
o Ground Points
• Bankfull
Indicators
• water Surface
Points

Appendix C
Reference Reach Pebble Counts

Reference Reach Particle Count
N
C
N
C
N
U
N
a-
0-0-0620.126-0.251.0-2.0 4.0-5.7 8.0-11-316.0-22.6 32-45 64-90 128-180
0.062-0.1250.50-1.0 2.0-4.0 5.7-8.0 11.3-16.022.6-32.0 45-64 90-128
Particle Size (mm)

Reference Reach Particle Count
L-
N
C
t%.
C
N
U
N
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Log Particle Size
• XS1 Riffle (PC)

Appendix D
Existing Conditions Longitudinal Profile and Cross Sections

Existing Conditions (Pond) Longitudinal Profile
7 UU h t�
Q� N
N
CD 0
95 x+ xl
C
W
85
SO
0 100 200 300 400
Distance along pond (ft)
• TW
W -.z
• BKF

Existing Conditions (Pond) Cross Section 1
w
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)
o Ground Points
• Bankfull
Indicators
• Water Surface
Points

Existing Conditions (Pond) Cross Section 2
C
O
N
W
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)
o Ground Points
• Bankfull
Indicators
• Water Surface
Points

Existing Conditions (Pond) Cross Section 3
1n
0 40 80 120
Horizontal Distance (ft)
o Ground Points
• Bankfull
Indicators
• Water Surface
Points