20170896 Ver 1_401 Application_20170720

Brown's Environmental Group, Inc.
Wetlands, Soils, Permitting
Brownenvgrp@gmaiLcom
919-524-5956
July 16, 2017
Karen Higgins
NCDWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 — 1617
2 0 1 T 0 8 9 g
Re: PCN application Caleb Property road crossings, wetland impact
Johnston County
Karen
Enclosed are 3 copies of PCN and maps for 1 crossing and minor wetland impact to
access a proposed S/D in Johnston County. Also enclosed is a fee of $240.00. The
crossing does impact the Neuse Buffer. The permit number has been approved by the
COE.
There was a question about possible impact to federally protected species so we
commissioned Ecological Engineers to conduct a survey, I am sending the report to the
Corps of Engineers but I attached a courtesy copy of the report for your files.
Any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you
/S/to-,-�
Wyatt Brown, LSS, CPESC
President
Brown's Environmental Group, Inc
242 Batten Farm Road, Selma, NC 27576

April 26, 2017
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Ms. Samantha Dailey
Re: Caleb Property, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/ properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enter
upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a
determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The property's PIN
number is 167400-29-5365.
Also, Mr Wyatt Brown of Brown's Environmental Group, Inc has my permission to act as my agent on
this property concerning wetlands and streams.
Sincerely
John Richard
�TDvelopment LLC
5194 US Hwy 70 Bus W I Clayton NC 27520

w AbLLKr�:9QG
1 1
r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Caleb Acres
2b. County:
Johnston
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Smithfield
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
RRT Development, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
Deed 04733, Page 0807
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Hank Richard
3d. Street address:
PO Box 190
3e. City, state, zip:
Clayton, NC 27520
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Wyatt Brown
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Browns Environmental
Group, Inc
5c. Street address:
242 Batten Farm Road
5d. City, state, zip:
Selma, NC 27576
5e. Telephone no.:
919-524-5956
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
167400-18-7764
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.53120 Longitude: - 78.42232
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size:
54.0 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
Middle Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C,NSW
2c. River basin:
Neuse
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:
sweet gum, maple forest, area land use subdivisions and farmimg
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
-0.30 ac. wetlands in project area,
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1617.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Install 1 crossing for access to S/D. Fill small amount of wetland for S/D road (plans and aerial attached)
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The 1 crossing will have culverts (plans attached) no wetlands at the crossing, track hoe to place the culverts
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
ElYes ® No ❑ Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
®Preliminary El Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Wyatt Brown
Agency/Consultant Company: Brown's Env. Group, Inc
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Neuse Buffers, Carlos Bagley, January 16, 2016
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W 1❑ P❑ T
fill of edge of
El Yes
® Corps
0003.
wetland A
® No
®DWQ
W2 ® P ❑ T
fill of wetland B
❑ Yes
® Corps
for S/D road
® No
® DWQ
.0679
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
.0682
2h. Comments: Engineer moved road to avoid wetlands,Fill impact is S/D street which will impact wetlands no stream
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
(2) 42 in RCP
42 ft. long, w/
UT to Middle
❑ PER
® Corps
ft
42 ft.
headwalls
Creek5
®INT
®DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
® Corps
® INT
® DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
® Corps
® INT
® DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
42
3i. Comments: Crossing located so to avoid wetlands wetlands
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
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
re uired?
B1 ®P ❑ T
road
UT to Middle creek.
® Nos
3317
2012
B2 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
63 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
3317
2012
6i. Comments: Using headwalls to minimize impact
Page 5 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Adjusted crossing location to minimize impacts, minimze buffer impacts, used head walls to cut down on width of crossing,
crossed wetland B in narrow section.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Care will be taken to install culvert during dry weather conditions as possible, and quickly as possible, stabilize immediately
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
15%
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:
On 15% impervious,
® Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Johnston
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWG) Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered `yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWGI 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.
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.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Natural Heritage Program, See attached Protected Species Report by Ecologicial Engineers
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?
http:Hwww. habitat. noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper. html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Dept. Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation Office
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Flood Maps
Wyatt Brown
July 13, 2017
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
plicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the information represented here.
I
Result 1
id:
15I08023F
Tag:
15108023F
Tax Unique Id:
0
N C P i n:
167400-18-7764
Mapsheet No:
1674
Owner Name 1:
RRT DEVELOPMENT, L.LC
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
Mail Address 2:
PO BOX 190
Mail Address 3:
CLAYTON, NC 27528-0190
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
04733
Page:
0807
Market Value:
0
Assessed Acreage:
54.94
Calc. Acreage:
54.94
Sales Price:
476500
Sale Date:
2016-03-16
Scale: 1:9961 - 1 in. = 830.11 feet
(The scale is only accurate when printed landscape on a 8 1/2 x 11 size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
June 20, 2017

n _ _
\
ARFA
OWNER \
\ - MAIL KIO,�(
IMPROV -M -
\\
Q
3426153 A _ - \
0.79 AC.. \
23838.88 IF. 1 \
�O�j /✓ \ 0.55 AC. $ \
27869978 IF.
/ 23789.055 IF. 11 \\\
0.64 AC. 0.55 AC. I \
2379202 SF. �` \
1 22675.58 SF. -
.52 Ac I \
0 5 \ ass Ac I,
1 49
23174.019 SF. 21794.49 SF.
0.53 AC. !�A 6 C' TM 0.55 AC.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 1 AREA 2
-71 a sF. 13 S.F. 2,960 S.F.
© m
\(per
257WO9 IF.
/ 1.54
0.59 AC
67191.6A 5
C.
21201.64 SF.
0 AC
AC
-"- ,4235183 SF. -- - 5�---0", - ]2005.51 IF \ _ "
0.97 AC. i---'95772.30 ------ 0.73 AC. -------- _ /
"- 2.20 - _ 46
- 2205.6AC
,
- i
I I Jct _ - _ _29397.59 IF.
0.67
1
__ __.. _ _ 20465.86 SF.
,O __ = __ 0.47 X.
29691 34 SF "
Pond area _ Ofi8 AC - 44
POND
\ C 19 .12 SF.
• __ - 2671802 SF. -�
/
I __
Not n %ec4-area \\\ ; = __-__-_� _-,65_\� I�
Will %Pi� VQ(ItQ{'P b5 0"R4PARW_80 - _ _0 49
5 RED 28428.96 SF
---TOP W _ _13 _ _ .65 AC.
^ \ \ �- 114164.{3 IF. ---
c�� Q IQtP.r V. \ \\ `\ _" --- zfiz Ac --
\\ j}
-�-STREA.AN,11 AC AND
\ \6 -_ - _ t _ i - STREAM IMRACT
I,
--
'�
_155� �- -'�, 66]18.09 IF.
_
70391.16 IF. \ \ 1.53 AC.
\ WFRAND
--2533716 IF.
osa Ac.
I WEfIAND IMPACT --- - WPACT \
_ AREA 2
WEFAN
INPA6T 1 29404.13 SF. \ \ \ \ \
56'090A2CSF.1 \ 0.68 AC
19. X15 \
\ \ \
I 1 36304938
V o.e3 Ac. 14 _ �,so vvv vv v�vA.
-1 v
/ / \ `37616.99 IF,
\\ '
/ 0.88
F - / \ 41-
1 , / \\\ 38360.53 IF,
O
20 0,88 Ac. 40 \ \\
\ 33786.06 SF. \ - \ 34730.24 IF.
\ 0.78 Ac.0.80 AC.
.tf \ 39
\ 25 �• \ I \ 55910.67 IF.
88318.58 SF hV//4 8.56 IF. o - _�' \ 1.28 AC.
27788 _ 2.03 AC.
�letland B _ -
I 38;
p i 4511 05 A . I \\ \
\ I '� \ / 41058 F1290)� SF.` { \ 05 AC 5573838 IF
4 �; 9 --- r. 1.2 C.
(area 2) X, \
I \ / 0.99 AC. /. O
24 \ 39808.09 IF. _ 97292.43 IF.
-
_ 30 b 2.23 AC. \
48298.83 IF. \ 0.91 AC. ^, p
44090.83 SF. \ 1.11 AC. \ I ��\ - -53208.24 SF.
1.01 Ac. 1.22
3862430 IF. p 1
I \ \ \ RA/KACE 089 AC. 09 03 IF.
1 1 A E4sEMEHr - i Ac. / 33 -A
0.79 ` \
42952.58 SF. / Ir / 35 i
34604.78 SF. \ �1\ 0.99 AC. /
�, , 1 , /77003.42 IF \
3
C\ 34 1.77 AC
2689 . I I
\ _ j {.08 IF.
0.62 AC.
SCALE. 1" = 100'
WETLAND IMPACT
o So 10D zoo 30o OF
CALEB SUBDIVISION
SMITHFIELD TOWNSHIP - JOHNSTON, N.C.

RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
3,317 S.F.
2,012 S.F.
STREAM BED IMPACT 42 L.F.
990
1917 SF. li \I I 1 "� I� /� ✓
PIPE /1j'16$
RC4 0�pLL
00%42
V A I I I I I I I W/NEAq WAec 4
END WALL
III�� 153.62
OUT -153.2.
I I
OAy39_9 AC ® /
20465.66 SF. 38360.53 SF.
0.47 AC. A I 1 to—�— _I �./ 0.66 AC.
7... \ l I I I I I I 11 I I 5 ` I
oxo II A I � I II I I� I I I I 1' I
I A I I \ � I I �. � 1 I I � I � � / II {I I •�0 eA � _ -- — �—� I
I \ II \1
RIPARIAN ZONKEQc y h\ l
\ V A I 1 13 Rldrwa i4N e
1114161 SF. \ I II / 1 I I �IPPRI�N rFF�R
2.62 AC. I I / I / i/ / ZONEl2 1
III i 1� E071EI/1 61
fiUfFE{J 1376/ 9 SF.
$TREAM i. I/ j I/ l I .66 AC.
/50'
ARM/BIR I(Q0' 9eNM
TOP/OFuK'
I I
7 I I 1 I II
\\ \ \\ I
1© I SF.
I II I I
� 11 1 \
I02
0.61 AC. 0.83 AC. PCS39826]36.91
9
.
PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50'
99n
10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00
PROFILE SCALE:
HORIZONTAL 1"=50-
VERTICAL
"=50'VERTICAL 1" = 10'
STREET "A" - 50' PUBLIC R/W
RIPARIAN BUFFER AND STREAM BED IMPACT
OF
CALEB SUBDIVISION
SMITHFIELD TOWNSHIP - JOHNSTON, N.C.
V.C. _ 60.50'
V.0
= 266.91'
210
K - 30.00
K
- 30.00
210
200
nm
^p
oa
+^
±�
_II
+e
^II
:�
200
M
I
II
190
190
180
180
OADWAY
fTERUNE
EKING
170
--
GRpUND
170
NG
—,y
i
MINIMU
g
-�
S
160
\
/�
160
150
150
2-421 RCP
140
18'-
- D.I. WATER W E
140
C
DRAT
R UNDERRM
AGE (18' VERnI AL SEPARATION
130
130
10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00
PROFILE SCALE:
HORIZONTAL 1"=50-
VERTICAL
"=50'VERTICAL 1" = 10'
STREET "A" - 50' PUBLIC R/W
RIPARIAN BUFFER AND STREAM BED IMPACT
OF
CALEB SUBDIVISION
SMITHFIELD TOWNSHIP - JOHNSTON, N.C.

� ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
July 7, 2017
Mr. Wyatt Brown
Brown's Environmental Group, Inc.
242 Batten Farm Rd.
Selma, NC 27576
Protected Species Survey
Johnston County PIN 167400-18-7764
Johnston County, NC
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, North Carolina 27518
[phone]
www.ecologicaleng.com
At the request of Mr. Wyatt Brown, Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) performed surveys for
federally protected species documented to occur in Johnston County, NC on the above -referenced parcel. The
following letter report provides an assessment of suitable habitat within the study area and our biological
conclusions concerning the impact of the project on each species.
Attachments:
• Protected Species Survey Report
• Figures
o Fig. 1. USGS Topographic Vicinity Map
o Fig. 2. Aerial and Topography
o Fig. 3. Habitat Exhibit
• Site Photographs
Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
David Cooper
Project Scientist
Copy: File

PROTECTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT
STUDY AREA
The evaluated study area, totaling approximately 55 acres, is located northwest of Smithfield, NC on the southwest
side of Cleveland Road (SR 1010) (Fig. 1).
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
As of the most recently updated county list, dated April 6, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six
federally protected species documented to occur in Johnston County, North Carolina (Table 1). A brief description
of each species' habitat requirements follows, along with the biological conclusions rendered based on habitat and
survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best available
information from literature and/or USFWS.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species Listed for Johnston County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Rhus michouxii
Michaux's sumac
Endangered
Yes
No Effect
Red -cockaded
Picoides borealis
woodpecker
Endangered
No
No Effect
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Endangered
No
May Affect— Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Elliptio lonceolota
Yellow lance
Proposed —
No
May Affect— Not Likely to
Threatened
Adversely Affect
Elliptio steinstansana
Tar River spinymussel
Endangered
No
No Effect
Halioeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
BGPA*
No
No Eagle Permit Required
*BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Michaux's sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May -October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows in sandy or
rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well -drained sands or sandy loam soils with low cation
exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line
Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line,
and utility rights-of-way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage;
small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood
canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the
central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore,
grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area was performed in July, 2017 using 2013 color aerials (Fig. 2).
Based on this remote assessment, the majority of the study area was identified as potentially suitable habitat and
targeted for field survey. A review of NHP records dated April 2017 revealed no known occurrences of this species
within 1 mile of the study area; the closest documented occurrence is approximately 14 miles away. During field
investigations on July 6, 2017, the study area was determined to contain suitable habitat for this species in the
form of periodically maintained, thinned hardwoods and edge habitats between maintained herbaceous areas and
hardwood forest (Fig. 3). A careful plant -by -plant survey was performed within suitable habitat by one qualified
observer for 5 person -hours, and no specimens of Michaux's sumac were located.
Ecological Engineering, LLP Project No. 10553-004

Due to the lack of nearby documented records and the lack of observed specimens during the plant -by -plant
survey, we have determined that project implementation will not affect this species.
Red -cockaded woodpecker
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round; November -early March (optimal)
Habitat Description: The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of southern
pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW excavates
cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous with pine stands
at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5
miles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A review of NCNHP records dated April 2017 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1 mile of the
project study area; the closest RCW record to the study area is approximately 5 miles away. A desktop -GIS
assessment of the project study area was performed in July, 2016 using 2013 color aerials. Areas which appeared
to be dominated by pine trees were targeted for on-site habitat evaluation. A field survey of the study area was
conducted on July 6, 2017. Visual inspection of the project area determined that no suitable foraging or nesting
habitat exists. A small area (approximately 0.2 acres) adjacent to a residence on Cleveland Road contains several
isolated loblolly pines within a maintained yard (Fig. 3). The largest of these, which measured approximately 22
inches in DBH, was cored with an increment borer and determined to be 44 years old. The isolated loblolly pines
do not constitute suitable foraging habitat due to the maintained condition of the surrounding area, specifically
the lack of grasses and other herbs characteristic of foraging habitat. The pine stand was surveyed by one qualified
observer for 0.5 person -hours and no RCW nests were observed. No other areas within the study area contain pine
stands, although scattered younger pines under 10 inches in DBH are located within hardwood stands.
Due to the lack of foraging and nesting habitat, the lack of known occurrences within 1 mile of the study area, and
the lack of observed RCW nests during the on-site survey, it has been determined that project implementation will
not affect this species.
Dwarf wedgemussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: Year-round
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the dwarf wedgemussel is known from the Neuse and Tar River drainages.
The mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate current and sand, gravel, or firm silt bottoms.
Water in these areas must be well oxygenated. Stream banks in these areas are generally stable with extensive
root systems holding soils in place.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The study area is located in the Neuse River basin. NCNHP records dated April 2017 show the closest documented
population of the dwarf wedgemussel is less than 1 mile away in Middle Creek. The study area contains a small,
first -order stream with abutting wetlands (Fig. 3). During the on-site investigation on July 6, 2017, the majority of
the small stream was observed to be dry. The stream's bankfull width is approximately 1 to 3 feet, and bank height
is approximately 1 to 2 feet. Substrate within the stream varies, but primarily consists of coarse, unconsolidated
sand and gravel. The study area does not contain suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel.
Project waters drain to the reach of Middle Creek documented to contain this species. The current site plan calls
for a culverted crossing of the on-site stream channel. The crossing will be placed in a reach which has been
typically documented to not convey water during most of the year. Adherence to erosion control measures
Ecological Engineering, LLP Project No. 10553-004

including the use and maintenance of silt fences, sediment traps, pump -around operations (if needed), and other
best management practices, will assure that no sediment impacts from the project area affect the receiving
waterway.
Given the presence of a nearby documented population within 1 mile downstream of the project area, the limited
amount of disturbance anticipated for this project, and adherence to strict erosion and sedimentation control
measures to be employed during project construction, we have determined that this project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect this species.
Yellow lance
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: Not available
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the yellow lance is known from the Neuse and Tar River drainages, and is
documented to occur in many of the same stream reaches as the dwarf wedgemussel. The yellow lance has been
documented from creeks and rivers with substrates including bedrock, cobble, gravel, clay, silt, and sand.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The study area is located in the Neuse River basin. NCNHP records dated April 2017 show the closest documented
population of the yellow lance is approximately 1.2 air miles from the study area in Swift Creek. In addition, project
waters drain, within less than 1 river mile, to Middle Creek, which is documented to contain the yellow lance. The
study area contains a small, first -order stream with abutting wetlands (Fig. 3). During the on-site investigation on
July 6, 2017, the majority of the small stream was observed to be dry. The stream's bankfull width is approximately
1 to 3 feet, and bank height is approximately 1 to 2 feet. Substrate within the stream varies, but primarily consists
of coarse, unconsolidated sand and gravel. The study area does not contain suitable habitat for the yellow lance.
Project waters drain to Middle Creek, which is documented to contain this species upstream of the confluence
with the project stream. The current site plan calls for a culverted crossing of the on-site stream channel. The
crossing will be placed in a reach which has been typically documented to not convey water during most of the
year. Adherence to erosion control measures including the use and maintenance of silt fences, sediment traps,
pump -around operations (if needed), and other best management practices, will assure that no sediment impacts
from the project area affect the receiving waterway.
Given the presence of a nearby documented population, the limited amount of disturbance anticipated for this
project, and adherence to strict erosion and sedimentation control measures to be employed during project
construction, we have determined that this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect this species.
Tar River spinymussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round
Habitat Description: The Tar spinymussel is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River drainage basins in North Carolina
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well -oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom should be
composed of unconsolidated gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt -free, and stream banks
should be stable, typically with many roots from adjacent riparian trees and shrubs.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area is located in the Neuse River basin. NCNHP records dated April 2017 show the closest documented
population of the Tar River spinymussel is approximately 12 air miles from the study area in the Little River. The
closest documented occurrence of this species in a waterbody to which the study area has a hydrologic connection
is located approximately 23 river miles downstream in the Neuse River. The study area contains a small, first -order
stream with abutting wetlands (Fig. 3). During the on-site investigation on July 6, 2017, the majority of the small
Ecological Engineering, LLP Project No. 10553-004 „g,

stream was observed to be dry. The stream's bankfull width is approximately 1 to 3 feet, and bank height is
approximately 1 to 2 feet. Substrate within the stream varies, but primarily consists of coarse, unconsolidated sand
and gravel. The study area does not contain suitable habitat for the Tar River spinymussel.
Project waters drain to Middle Creek, which is not documented to contain this species. The current site plan calls
for a culverted crossing of the on-site stream channel. The crossing will be placed in a reach which has been
typically documented to not convey water during most of the year. Adherence to erosion control measures
including the use and maintenance of silt fences, sediment traps, pump -around operations (if needed), and other
best management practices, will assure that no sediment impacts from the project area affect the receiving
waterway.
Given the lack of nearby documented populations, the limited amount of disturbance anticipated for this project,
and adherence to strict erosion and sedimentation control measures to be employed during project construction,
we have determined that project implementation will not affect this species.
Bald eagle
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round; November— March (optimal to observe birds and nests);
February — May (optimal to observe active nesting)
Habitat Description: Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of
open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
Biological Conclusion: No Eagle Permit Required
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13 -mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660
feet) of the project limits, was performed in July, 2016 using 2013 color aerials. There are no water bodies large
enough and sufficiently open to be considered a potential feeding source within this radius. Because there was no
potentially suitable foraging habitat adjacent to the study area, no nest survey was conducted. A review of NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records dated April 2017 revealed no known occurrences of this species within
1.13 miles of the project study area.
Due to the lack of suitable foraging habitat and the lack of known occurrences, it has been determined that this
project will not affect this species and no permit is required.
Ecological Engineering, LLP Project No. 10553-004

W 0
Legend o
_ 1J
p
swi// ('1• �!
Q Evaluated Area - <<
1/ /.' 150 9p
`VJ " SANDY LN
tioo z W Oakey
Grove Cern
Q !
3
Q O� SHORT JOURNEY RD 2p0 1 CREEK'RD L
,s �IF Johnston Count
13
z i
W .:a
ALEXANDER LN % fr�\M
o.
Evaluated Area
I
i(
c
o Panther
V/ �� i Lake
150
l h�
��-z�
J)OV
J
F
Prepared By: Prepared For: Fig. 1 - USGS Topographic Map n'
Protected Species Survey
Brown's PIN 167400-18-7764 w E
Environmental Johnston County, NC S
ECOLOGICAL MGroup, Inc. 0 000 2,000
ENGINEERING 2013 Powhatan USGS Quadrangle
1.1 r i +n Park.+ay. tiic I•l . (-.n �< ' l a
1" = 2,000'

�� ,ti � `iti` ---- -- ice/ / / / / / / � \♦\
I /
\ 1 � \; \ \\�r 1\ l 1 1 � 1\ www`— w \♦�
\ I 1 t' 1 1111 t ",.\♦\\\ _'__ "� � \� \\ \
1 1 1( 1111 � ��\\��\ 1. ' `ww-�. _.. � ,. JI'1w♦\ \\\\\\
s /
1 1"
t
1 / /
la
(
�� ,ti � `iti` ---- -- ice/ / / / / / / � \♦\
I /
\ 1 � \; \ \\�r 1\ l 1 1 � 1\ www`— w \♦�
\ I 1 t' 1 1111 t ",.\♦\\\ _'__ "� � \� \\ \
1 1 1( 1111 � ��\\��\ 1. ' `ww-�. _.. � ,. JI'1w♦\ \\\\\\

o
MOW -
CD (� /
i \
♦- - - - - - -
-
\ \ \
�yr �
t.
I
r
rd
o
MOW -
CD (� /
i \
♦- - - - - - -
-
\ \ \

Johnston Co. PIN 167400-18-1764 Protected Species Survey
Site Photographs —Taken July 6, 2017
The following photographs serve to document the condition of habitat for protected species within the study area.
Photo 1— Loblolly Pine and Maintained -Disturbed Habitat
adjacent to Residence on Cleveland Road
Photo 2 — Core of Largest Loblolly Pine — 44 Years Old
Photo 3 — Maintained -Disturbed Habitat, Not Suitable for
Protected Species
Photo 4 — Dry First -order Stream, Not Suitable Mussel Habitat
Photo 5 — Typical Thinned Hardwood Habitat Surveyed for
Michaux's Sumac
Photo 6 —Typical Edge Habitat Surveyed for Michaux's Sumac,
Looking toward Hardwood Stream/Wetland Corridor