20180459 Ver 1_401 Application_20180318

WEPG
ntal Planning Group
Leonard S. Wndner, PLLC.
r�TeliminaryData • for •
ACTION ID #: SAW- Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM$IPq'®
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Southstone
20180 4-50
2. Work Type: ❑✓ Private ❑ Institutional 1-1Government F1Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request and Permit Application for a residential development.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A41: Todd Terwilliger, TAC Southstone, LLC
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC - Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]:
7. Project Location —Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
35.1344 N/-80.6217 W
8. Project Location—Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form Bla]: Multiple parcels - see Parcel Map
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Union
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: St
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Goose C
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 030401 Go
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 12 & #29
Regional General Permit #
L✓J Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
March 27, 2018
Mr. David L. Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Alan Johnson
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
Wetlands & Storm Water Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Subject: SAW -2017-02593 — Request for Pre -Construction Notification for NWP #12 and
#29 and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request for the Southstone Site,
Stallings, Union County, NC
Ms. Higgins and Messrs. Shaeffer, Johnson, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for Nationwide Permit # 12 and #29 and an updated Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Request associated with the proposed Southstone residential
development in Stallings, Union County, NC. The proposed development will consist of 165
single-family homes and support street, parking, utility, and stormwater management
infrastructure improvements. Currently, the site is composed of forested area with residential
developments located adjacent. Existing infrastructure includes an access roadway (Old Farm
Drive) which extends from the northwestern portion of the site to a sewer lift station located near
the center of the site. In addition, an existing sanitary sewer extends from both the northwestern
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail] 1

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
and central portions of this site. The sanitary sewers intersect near the center of the site and
extend along a majority of the western property line of the southeastern portion of the site.
This cover letter summarizes pertinent issues discussed with NCDEQ and the USACE in all pre -
application meetings, describes existing and proposed site conditions, and provides details of our
avoidance and minimization efforts implemented to meet current regulations. In this application
we have also included:
• Verifications from NCDEQ regarding onsite streams and their subjectivity to the Goose
Creek Buffer Rules;
• Habitat and presence/absence surveys for terrestrial and aquatic Federally Listed
Threatened and Endangered Species;
• NCDEQ Approvals for the site Stormwater Management Plan;
• NCDEQ Approvals for the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan; and
• Anticipated inspection and monitoring schedule of sediment and erosion controls by third
party stormwater and erosion management specialist
Jurisdictional Determination:
Surface water features identified within the site include two intermittent streams (Stream A and
Stream D), one perennial stream (Stream C) and two wetlands (Wetlands B and E). Total length
of all streams and wetland area are 2,658 linear feet and 0.051 acres, respectively. Site visits
were conducted to review and confirm WEPG's delineation on June 29, 2017 by Alan Johnson
of NCDEQ and on March 22, 2018 by Catherine Janiczak of the USACE. A Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Request was submitted to the USACE on December 15, 2017 and
given an Action ID# of SAW -2017-02593. An update to this request is included as part of this
application. Please refer to Sheet 8 of 25 for the NCDEQ determination of site surface waters
and their subjectivity to the Goose Creek buffer rules. Additionally, please refer to the
Jurisdictional Determination Information section for an update to the previously submitted
Preliminary Jurisdictional Request.
Avoidance and Minimization Discussion:
The site is situated approximately 2,500 feet south-southeast of the intersection of Stevens Mill
Road and Lawyers Road and is located within the Goose Creek basin. As indicated in the
appended plans, two stream crossings are proposed. Crossing 1 is located near the terminus of
Old Farm Drive adjacent to the existing sewer pump station and is proposed to span an
intermittent stream (Stream A). Crossing 2 is located centrally and will cross a perennial stream
(Stream C) that bisects the site. In efforts to minimize impacts to site surface waters and to avoid
indirect impacts to this watershed, alternative designs and construction methods were
implemented and will include considerations for construction and post -construction phase
monitoring of stormwater events, habitat assessment for threatened and endangered species, and
a presences/absence survey for Federally protected mussel species. Of the 2,658 linear feet of
onsite streams, less than 10% are anticipated to be permanently impacted by the proposed
project. These proposed methods and assessments are discussed in greater detail in the following
sections.
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail] 2

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Proposed Permanent Impacts
Proposed permanent impacts that result in a loss of potentially jurisdictional waters associated
with the residential development total approximately 250 linear feet of onsite streams and
approximately 0.05 acres of onsite wetlands. Due to the irregular shape of the project boundary,
site access to adjacent roadways and roadway connectivity within the site, complete avoidance of
site surface waters was not possible.
In efforts to minimize the impacts from these stream crossings, a pre -application meeting was
initiated with David Shaeffer of the USACE. This preapplication meeting included discussions
regarding the preferred designs of the proposed crossings for this project. We discussed the
potential of implementing bottomless culvert crossings for the proposed project and established,
though our discussions of the existing conditions at each crossing location and the functional
history of bottomless culverts, that a well-designed crossing would be preferential over the use of
bottomless culverts. Potential failure of bottomless culverts, if installed, may require multiple in -
stream impacts for correction of scour within the streambed and adjacent to the culvert
abutments. Additional in -stream work may be necessary if replacement of structurally
compromised areas within the culvert abutment is required. Current site conditions were
determined to limit the options for optimal installation of bottomless culverts at each location
due to adjacent existing infrastructure and lack of suitable subsurface geology. As proposed, the
installed culverts will provide comparatively increased stability and sustainability within the
streambed and throughout the roadway span. Flows through these crossings will be
accommodated by appropriately sized culverts to pass anticipated storm events and have been
designed to limit the potential for upstream/downstream scour. The following describes
additional avoidance and minimization efforts implemented for each proposed crossing.
Crossing I
Access to the site is from Stevens Mill Road along the western property line. In accessing the
eastern portion of the site from Stevens Mill Road the roadway must extended through a "pinch
point" that is only 189 LF in width. This narrowed access is created by existing, adjacent parcels
that restrict the available width of the site at this location. To further complicate the routing of
this access, an existing pump station is located near the middle of this 189 LF site restriction.
At this pinch point location, Intermittent Stream A flows from north to south and is abutted by
Wetland B. Characteristics of Stream A, upstream of the crossing location (Crossing 1), exhibit a
slightly altered pattern and profile within a mixed -aged, woody riparian zone approximately 30
feet to 50 feet wide. As the stream transitions to the location of Crossing 1, the channel becomes
more impacted by increased sedimentation and encroaching herbaceous vegetation. The woody
buffer is significantly reduced, the valley shape flattens, and the stream geomorphology becomes
less pronounced. In -stream habitat and functional capacity at this location are restricted by the
channel's limited stability and comparatively weakened geomorphology from that of the
upstream reach. These impacts to the stream's potential function are reflected in the attached
NCSAM results which indicate a low score and are greatly influenced by the adjacent stressors
(e.g. adjacent pump station and access road) and the lack of consistent stream -side habitat and
buffers. Please refer to the Crossing Assessments section for a Photo Location Map, photographs
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail] 3

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
and NCSAM Stream Assessments which provide representative photos of the streams at each
crossing and further details on NCSAM metrics scoring and ratings results for each crossing
location.
Crossing 1 is proposed to be located just south of this existing pump station and will impact
approximately 157LF of Intermittent Stream A and 0.05 acres of Wetland B. This crossing
location was selected as it allowed for more area to cross between the southern project boundary
and the existing pump station. This crossing location was also selected as it was the only area
wide enough, within this pinch point, that would provide adequate space for a safely designed
crossing and not require the existing pump station to be relocated. Relocation of the pump station
was included as an option and would have provided a potentially better crossing approach to
Stream A; however, relocation of the existing pump station would have made the project
unfeasible incurring an additional expense of approximately $250,000 - $300,000.
The high cost associated with relocating the pump station is driven by the need to keep the pump
station active while building a replacement pump station outside of this pinch point. Additional
costs would be incurred in removing the existing pump station once the new pump station was
online. These costs also do not take into consideration the time and inconvenience involved in
notifying the serviced residences, and the disruption of sewer and water service during the pump
station switch over. Actual anticipated cost of the proposed road crossing (curb & gutter, storm
pipes, asphalt, rip -rap, etc.) is approximately $100,000.
Crossing 2
Crossing 2 is located centrally within the site and is proposed to span a perennial stream (Stream
C). Characteristics of Stream C exhibit strong geomorphology with a well-defined pattern and
profile but is impacted by stressors which include narrow woody buffers from adjacent sewer
easements and access trails. NCSAM results reflected the decrease in potential function from
these adjacent stressors with an overall medium rating.
Proposed permanent impacts associated with Crossing 2 are comparatively lower as it is less
encumbered by existing, adjacent infrastructure and project boundary limitations. Crossing 2 has
been located and oriented to approach Stream C approximately perpendicular to limit any
additional stream impacts from meanders and acute intersection angles. Proposed permanent
impacts that result in a loss of potentially jurisdictional waters associated with Crossing 2 will be
limited to 61 linear feet. A proposed rip rap apron will be installed on the downstream side of
Crossing 2 that will include an additional 32 linear feet of permanent impact to Stream C.
Proposed Temporary Impacts:
Proposed temporary impacts for Crossing 1 and Crossing 2 will total 50 linear feet and 15 linear
feet respectively. These temporary impacts are required for construction access at both the
upstream and downstream sides of Crossing 1 and the upstream side of Crossing 2. This
temporary access necessary for the installation of the proposed culverts, headwalls and
downstream rip -rap aprons. These temporary impacts will be restored to preconstruction
conditions and will utilize matting and temporary stabilization to limit erosion and reestablish
vegetation along the banks. A Conceptual Enhancement Plan is attached and provides details for
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail] 4

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
the stabilization of stream banks associated with the construction access impacts. A plan view
detailing the recommended installation of the Enhancement Plans for each temporary access
impact is also included.
Three additional temporary impact locations were initially proposed for the installation of
sanitary sewer lines utilizing open cut methods. However, all proposed utility line crossings of
onsite streams will be bored and will not require any temporary or permanent stream impacts. All
trenchless utility crossings will be installed according to Subchapter 02T, NCDEQ and Division
Minimum Design Criteria. Please refer to the Maps and Plans section for further information on
proposed temporary access and trenchless crossing locations.
Stormwater Management:
The proposed development is located within the Yadkin River Basin with stormwater runoff
from the site draining to an unnamed tributary to Goose Creek. Per Town of Stallings
regulations, stormwater management on this site shall meet the stormwater performance
standards for the Goose Creek District as outlined in the Town of Stallings Development
Ordinance.
The proposed stormwater management plan includes six facilities that treat and manage runoff
from the proposed development. Each facility is designed such that it provides adequate peak
runoff control to meet Town of Stallings detention requirements. To meet applicable stormwater
management requirements for the Goose Creek Watershed, the stormwater management facilities
are designed to treat and control the difference in stormwater runoff from the predevelopment
and post -development conditions for the 1 -year, 24-hour storm, and where possible, this volume
is directed to a level spreader system to promote infiltration of flows and diffuse flow through
the buffer. Additionally, 100 -ft riparian buffers will be maintained along existing streams within
the project boundary.
As proposed above, the stormwater plan was written to meet the stormwater performance
standards for the Goose Creek District as outlined in the Town of Stallings Development
Ordinance. This plan was submitted to the delegated authority, the Division of Energy, Mineral
and Land Resources (DEMLR), on February 2, 2018. On February 6, 2018, DEMLR reviewed
the submitted plans and specifications and determined that the project would comply with the
Stormwater Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 02H.1000. The Permit No. SW3171102
was forwarded for the construction, operation and maintenance of the subject project and the
stormwater system. Please refer to the Stormwater Management section for a copy of the
approval cover letter and State Stormwater Management Permit.
Sediment and Erosion Control
A full Construction Drawings Document, including an Overall Erosion Control Plans and Details
set, was submitted for the proposed project to NCDEQ on February 5, 2018. This plan was
designed in accordance with the N.C. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Charlotte Land Development Standards
Manual. This plan set specifically documents the proposed construction sequence, erosion
control measures and structures necessary to meet the requirements set forth by the
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail] 5

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
abovementioned agencies and by the Town of Stallings. A Letter of Approval for the Sediment
and Erosion Control Plan for the site was issued on March 21, 2018 by the Land Quality Section
of NCDEQ.
To assist in compliance with the proposed plan, a third party stormwater and erosion
management specialist (Controlled Sites, LLC) will be onsite to provide stormwater inspection,
guidance and documentation of all stormwater control methods and implemented control
structures. The plan identifies all areas in which the Inspector will be required to monitor and
sets forth structured sequencing for all pre- and post -installation meetings and inspections. Please
refer to the submitted Construction Drawings Document (Union -2018-036) for additional details
of the site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the approval from NCDEQ. Additionally,
please refer to the Sediment and Erosion Control section for a copy of the Sediment and Erosion
Control application and the Stage 1 figure for the Construction Sequence of the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan.
Threatened and Endangered Species Presence/Absence Survey and Habitat Evaluations:
Due to the location of the proposed project within the Goose Creek Basin, an evaluation was
performed by Three Oaks Engineering to evaluate potential impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter
and other freshwater mussel species from the proposed project. A mussel survey, targeting the
Carolina Heelsplitter was conducted in the UT to Goose Creek from the confluence with Goose
Creek to a point approximately 100 meters (328 feet) upstream of the northern project boundary.
Results of the mussel survey found no freshwater mussel species in Stream C onsite nor
downstream offsite to its confluence with Goose Creek. It was determined through the results of
the survey and habitat conditions, that the targeted Carolina Heelsplitter is unlikely to occur
within the immediate impact area of the UT. Potential direct impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter
from project construction are low, as the site is over 8 River Miles upstream from critical habitat
for this species. Strict adherence to erosion/sedimentation control measures during project
construction were recommended to minimize/eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to occur
to this species downstream of the project area. No presence/absence survey was performed on
Stream A due to habitat and flow regime requirements of the Federally protected species. Please
refer to the Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation Section for additional details on the
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report.
Also enclosed is a copy of our terrestrial species Threatened/Endangered Species Evaluation for
the site. No listed species were identified within the project area and we believe that there will be
no effect on listed species or their critical habitat as designated under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. Please refer to the Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation
Section for additional details on the terrestrial species evaluation.
Proposed Mitigation:
As mentioned above, the functional capacity of the Stream A at Crossing 1 has been heavily
influenced by historical and current adjacent uses. The assessed reach of Stream A at Crossing 1
is currently impacted by past channelization, adjacent buffer manipulation and rerouting. To
compensate for the proposed stream impacts, while incorporating the current functional capacity
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com
Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550
Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277
Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail] 6

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
of the onsite channel, the applicant is proposing payment into the N.C. Division Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) at a 1:1 ratio for 157 linear feet of warm water stream channel.
To compensate for the anticipated permanent impacts to Stream C at Crossing 2, the applicant is
proposing payment into NCDMS at a 2:1 ratio for 93 linear feet of warm water stream channel.
This proposed mitigation ratio is associated with the higher quality tributary having a majority of
its channel characterized by a more stable geomorphology and substrate diversity. Please refer to
the NCSAM Stream Assessment section for functional summaries of each impact location. Also,
please see the enclosed conditional acceptance letter from NCDMS.
Additionally, in a preapplication meeting with Mr. Alan Johnson, it was determined that
temporary buffer impacts, necessary for the trenchless utility line crossings, would be mitigated
though replanting of the construction easement. Proposed reestablishment of woody vegetation
of the buffer will require a minimum stem density of 260 stems per acre within the construction
corridor. Native planted species will match types listed on Sheets 14, 17 and 18 of 25 and areas
within the permanent maintenance corridor will be seeded as indicated on these sheets.
We believe this application address the requirements necessary for development of such a project
within such a highly regulated watershed. The necessary components required for protection of
onsite surface waters and their downstream tributaries, including consideration of avoidance and
minimization of impacts, has been incorporated into all phases of this project. Please feel free to
contact me if you have any questions and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Heath Caldwell, PWS
Environmental Scientist
heath. caldwell(a)wetlands-epg com
[phone]
Len Rindner, PWS
Principal
len.rindner(a,wetlands-epg com
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail] 7

Permit Application

0
�0F W A rF9oc
o <
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. 2017-02593
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12&29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
XN 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑X Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
NX Yes N No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
N Yes NX No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Southstone
2b.
County:
Union
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Stallings
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Multiple - See attached Parcel Map
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable).-
pplicable):3d.
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: Buyer
4b.
Name:
Todd Terwilliger
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
TAC Southstone, LLC
4d.
Street address:
2100 Powers Ferry Road, Ste. 350
4e. City, state, zip:
Atlanta, GA 30339
4f.
Telephone no.:
770-450-8765
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Heath Caldwell
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC - Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
5c.
Street address:
10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28277
5e.
Telephone no.:
704-999-5279
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Please see attached Parcel Map
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): ILatitude:
35.1344 Longitude: -80.6217
1c.
Property size:
88.1 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Goose Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c.
River basin:
03040105
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is composed of vacant, forested land. General land use in the vicinity consists of residential and commercial developments.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.051
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 2,658
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Construction of a single family residential development, culvert installation for access roadways, utility line installation and stormwater infrastructure.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Excavation and grading of the site will use standard equipment - excavator, trackhoe, dump trucks, etc.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): N. Nelson
Agency/Consultant Company: WEPG
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Site visit was conducted by Alan Johnson of NCDEQ on 6/29/17 and on March 22, 2018 by Catherine Janiczak of the USACE to confirm WEPG's
delineation. Findings were submitted for preliminary determination on 12/15/2017 and an update to the previous request is included in this application.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes M No ❑Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes X❑ No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
0 Wetlands Q Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 T
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.05
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.05
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
Stream A
INT
Corps
4
157
S2 T
Access
Stream A
INT
Corps
4
50
S3 P
Culvert
Stream C
PER
Corps
8
61
S4 P
Fill
Stream C
PER
Corps
8
32
S5 T
Access
Stream C
PER
Corps
8
15
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
315
3i. Comments:
*Proposed impacts from S4 are associated with the rip rap apron at Crossing 2 which will be installed to match the preconstruction stream bed
elevation. Proposed permanent loss to potentially jurisdictional waters associated with this project will total 250 linear feet.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivii ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Due to the location of the on-site streams and the irregular configuration of the site, opportunities to avoid all surface waters were limited. Access from
the western portion of the site must pass through a narrow area located at one of the two stream crossings. The second crossing is located along a
stream that bisects and extends through the entire site. Of the approximate 2658 linear feet of stream located on-site, only 250 linear feet of
permanent impacts are proposed as part of this project. Permanent wetland impacts for the site will total 0.05 acres.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize impacts to onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑X Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑X Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑X Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
250 linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
warm
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: Please see cover letter for a breakdown of the proposed mitigation ratios for each impacted reach.
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
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.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(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).
In a preapplication meeting with Mr. Alan Johnson, it was determined that temporary buffer impacts would be mitigated though
6h. Comments: replanting of the construction easement. Proposed reestablishment of woody vegetation of the buffer will require a minimum stem
density of 260 stems per acre within the construction corridor. Native planted species will match types listed on Sheet 14, 17 and 18
of 25 and areas within the permanent maintenance corridor will be seeded as proposed.
Page 7 of 10

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
❑ Yes X❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
27.55%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑x 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:
The proposed stormwater management plan includes six facilities that treat and manage runoff from the proposed development. Each facility is
designed such that it provides adequate peak runoff control to meet Town of Stallings detention requirements.
To meet applicable stormwater
management requirements for the Goose Creek Watershed, the stormwater management facilities are designed to treat and control the difference in
stormwater runoff from the predevelopment and post -development conditions for the 1 -year, 24-hour storm, and where possible, this volume is
directed to a level spreader system to promote infiltration of flows and diffuse flow through the buffer. Please refer to the Stormwater Impact Analysis
section for further details of the Stormwater Management Plan.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
NCDEMLR
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
F1 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):
F1 Session Law 2006-246
❑X Other: Phase II
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑X Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑X Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑X Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
❑X No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
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
E] Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
El Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ YesX❑
No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No additional phases are proposed.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via existing/proposed sewer lines.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
T&E species assessments for both terrestrial and aquatic species were conducted in which no Federally listed species were identified or anticipated to
be directly impacted as a result of the proposed project. Please refer to the T&E Species Report section for further survey results/details.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ YesX❑ No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
No essential fish habitat in this region.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
SHPO's website: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ YesX❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Union County GIS/Mapping -- http://gis-web.co.union.nc.us/gomaps/#
Heath Caldwell
Dgta0y 5,9n,d by H -h Caldwell
Heath Caldwell °ma �ne,n�d�° ��MseP9
Date 2018 03 26 2325 58-04'00'
0'-26-2018
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 10 of 10

)LEN
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Agent Authorization Letter
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic
resource (i.e. stream/wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting. The
undersigned, who are either registered property owners or legally authorized to conduct due
diligence activities on the property as identified below, do hereby authorize associates of
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of applicable
permit(s) and/or certification(s).
Project/Site Name:
Property Address:
Southstone
Stevens Mill Road
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 07033002A. 070330078, 07033007F, 70330//, 07054003E and 07054003F
Select one: I am an interested buyer/seller
Name: ) *,4cA_
Company: 'TAC Se,,., t 54/za L L C
Mailing Address: a I Of% Pvt,-ef'S i7 �,� I Sly' 3 �� 11i"T 1� (�� � O -� 3(/
Telephone Number: -� -�c_ Lf �-O
Electronic Mail Address:
o
----7�ct.I'a�WL �M Pa/1�`Q
S . Crv�►
W
Property Owner / Intereste uyer* / Other*
* The Interested Buyer/Other acknowledges that an agreement and/or formal contract to purchase and/or conduct
due diligence activities exists between the current property owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases
where the property is not owned by the signatory.
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetlands-epg.com
2
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville. NC 28805
[phone]
arnanda )[e-mail]

INittgladon Services
EIV I ROMMENTAL QUAL ITV
December 8, 2017
Todd Terwillger
TAC Southstone, LLC
2100 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 350
Atlanta, GA 30339
Project: Southstone
ROY COOPER
MJ('I-iAf'L S. REGAN
Expiration of Acceptance: 6/8/2018
County: Union
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/LAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and
payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by
an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin j Impact Location j Impact Type Impact Quantity
(8 -digit HUC I
Yadkin 03040105 Warm Stream 300
_-L__
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Heath Caldwell, agent
Sincerely,
I'
Jame . B Stanfill
A�set!Management Supervisor
i
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality NGtigation Services
1652 N4ail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1653 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

Energy, Mineral
and Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
WILLIAM E. (TOBY) VINSON, JR.
Interim Director
March 21, 2018
LETTER OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS
AND PERFORMANCE RESERVATIONS
TAC Southstone, LLC
Attention: Todd Terwilliger, Authorized Signatory
2100 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 350
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
RE: Project Name: Southstone
Acres Approved: 68
Project ID: UNION -2018-036
County: Union, City: Stallings
Address: Stevens Mill Road
River Basin: Yadkin — Pee Dee
Stream Classification: Other
Submitted By: TAC Southstone, LLC
Date Received by LQS: March 8, 2018
Plan Type: Revised
Dear Mr. Terwilliger:
This office has reviewed the subject erosion and sedimentation control plan and hereby issues
this Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations. A list of the
modifications and reservations is attached. This plan approval shall expire three (3) years
following the date of approval, if no land -disturbing activity has been undertaken, as is required
by Title 15A NCAC 413 .0129. Should the plan not perform adequately, a revised plan will be
required (G.S. I I 3A-54. 1)(b).
Please be aware that your project will be covered by the enclosed NPDES Construction
Stormwater General Permit NCGO10000. Please become familiar with all the requirements and
conditions of this permit in order to achieve compliance.
Please be advised that Title 15A NCAC 4B .0118(a) requires that a copy of the approved erosion
control plan be on file at the job site. Also, you should consider this letter to give the Notice
State of [North Carolina 1 Environmental Quality I Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Mooresville Regional Office 1 610 East Center Ave Ste 301 1 Mooresville, NC 28115
704 663 1699 T

Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations
TAC Southstone, LLC
March 21, 2018
Page 2 of 3
required by G.S. 113A -61.1(a) of our right of periodic inspection to insure compliance with the
approved plan.
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Program is performance -oriented, requiring
protection of existing natural resources and adjoining properties. If, following the
commencement of this project, it is determined that the erosion and sedimentation control plan is
inadequate to meet the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North
Carolina General Statute 113A-51 thru 66), this office may require revisions to the plan and
implementation of the revisions to insure compliance with the Act.
Acceptance and approval of this plan is conditioned upon your compliance with Federal and
State water quality laws, regulations, and rules. In addition, local city or county ordinances or
rules may also apply to this land -disturbing activity. This approval does not supersede any other
permit or approval.
Please note that this approval is based in part on the accuracy of the information provided in the
Financial Responsibility Form, which you have provided. You_are requested to file an amended
form if there is any change in the information included on the form. In addition, it would be
helpful if you notify this office of the proposed starting date for this project. Please notify us if
you plan to have a preconstruction conference.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tamera Eplin E, CPESC
Assistant Re ional Engineer
Land Quality Section
THE
Enclosures: Certificate of Plan Approval
Modifications and Performance Reservations
NPDES Permit
c: Rob Reddick, Jr., PE I McAdams 1343 6 Toringdon Way, Suite 110 1 Charlotte, NC 28277
Inspection Department

Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations
TAC Southstone, LLC
March 21, 2018
Page 3 of 3
MODIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE RESERVATIONS
Project Name: Southstone
Project ID: UNION -2018-036
County: Union
Modifications pursuant to applicable North Carolina General Statutes and/or Regulations:
The installation of the creek crossings should take place early in the construction sequence to
minimize overall impact to the stream. Care should be taken to minimize impact and stream
flow characteristics. Any proposed installation of rip -rap within the creek bed should be
discussed and approved by the Water Quality Regional Operations Section [15A NCAC 4B
.0 112, 15A NCAC 413 .0115]
2. Temporary slope drains should be provided where temporary diversions discharge into sediment
basins or traps with a slope height greater than seven feet. [G.S. 113A-57(3)]
Be advised that in order to issue the new NPDES permit that went into effect July 27, 2016,
ground stabilization must occur within 7 days on perimeter areas and slopes greater than 3:1,
and ground stabilization must occur within 14 days on other areas. For more information,
please visit
Y;tths_' ;less r.�,��� nccl4y,l_ncr��°o (.)Mineral"u_Octnii°u_ULan�l,o21)Res�>urccs;Sturrn ater,\'
�c00",
These stabilization timeframes will supersede any less stringent requirements on your ESC
plans and apply to any period of inactivity. [G.S. 143-215.1, General Permit — NCG 010000]
Performance Reservations:
Be advised that 401/404 permits/certifications may provide authorization to work in the areas
subject to these permits/certifications, but they do not authorize impact beyond the limits of
the permits/certifications. Additional measures may be required to limit impact to the creek.
The applicant is responsible for the control of sediment on-site. If the approved erosion and
sedimentation control measures prove insufficient, the applicant must take those additional
steps necessary to stop sediment from leaving this site. [15A NCAC 4B .0115]
2. This project is located in the Goose Creek Watershed. All specific and general conditions of the
buffer authorization issued by the Water Quality Regional Operations Section must be followed.
[15A NCAC 213 .0600 -.0609]

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North
Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
TAC Southstone, LLC
Southstone
Stevens Mill Rd., Stallings, Union County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of each Stormwater Control Measures (SCM) in
compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 02H .1000 (hereafter referred to as the
"stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater management plans, specifications and
other supporting data as on file with and approved by the State and considered a part of
this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until February 5, 2026, and shall be
subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. Each SCM is approved for the management of stormwater runoff as described in the
application documents and as shown on the approved plans.
3. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located within a dedicated
common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project will be
recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the approved
plans.
4. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area of this project
must be directed into the SCMs.
5. The built -upon areas associated with this project shall be located at least 30 feet
landward of all perennial and intermittent surface waters.
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
2. The permittee shall at all time provide the operation and maintenance necessary to
assure every SCM functions at optimum efficiency. The approved Operation and
Maintenance Plan must be followed in its entirety and maintenance must occur at
the scheduled intervals including, but not limited to:
Page 1 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing and re -vegetation of slopes and the filter strip.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of all drainage structures, level spreader, filter
media, planting media, underdrains, catch basins and piping.
g. Access to the cell and outlet structure must be available at all times.
3. Records of maintenance activities must be kept for each SCM. The reports will
indicate the date, activity, name of person performing the work and what actions
were taken. The owner shall keep maintenance records and these shall be available
upon request by the party responsible for enforcing the stormwater program under
which the SCMs were approved.
4. The permittee shall submit an annual summary report of the maintenance and
inspection records for each SCM. The report shall summarize the inspection dates,
results of the inspections, and the maintenance work performed at each inspection.
5. Each SCM shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications, the conditions of this permit, and with other supporting data.
6. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received from
an appropriate designer for each SCM certifying that each has been installed in
accordance with this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting documentation. Any deviations from the approved plans and
specifications must be noted on the Certification. A modification may be required for
those deviations.
7. SCMs impacted by sedimentation and erosion control during the construction phase
shall be cleaned out and converted to its approved design state.
8. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of all or part of the project area.
The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee, for which
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
9. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the
Permittee for a minimum of eight years from the date of the completion of
construction.
10. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or
more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in
the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director for
modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide
copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director that the changes
have been made.
Page 2 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
11. Plats for residential lots that contain SCMs shall include: the specific location of
the SCM on the lot; a typical detail for SCM to be used; and a note that the SCM on
the property has been required to meet stormwater regulations and that the property
owner may be subject to enforcement procedures as set forth in G.S. 143, Article 21
if the SCM is removed, relocated, or altered without prior approval.
12. All SCMs and associated maintenance accesses on privately owned land except
for those located on single family residential lots shall be located in permanent
recorded easements. The SCM shall be shown and labeled within the easement.
These easements shall be granted in favor of the party responsible for enforcing the
stormwater program under which the SCMs were approved. SCMs must have
access and maintenance easements to provide the legal authority for inspections,
maintenance personnel and equipment. The entire footprint of the SCM system
must be included in the access and maintenance easement, plus an additional ten
or more feet around the SCM to provide enough room to complete maintenance
tasks. This SCM system includes the side slopes, forebay, riser structure, SCM
device, and basin outlet, dam embankment, outlet, and emergency spillway.
13. The O&M Agreement shall be referenced on the final plat and shall be recorded with
the County Register of Deeds upon final plat approval. If no subdivision plat is
recorded for the site, then the O&M Agreement shall be recorded with the county
Register of Deeds so as to appear in the chain of title of all subsequent purchasers.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable except after notice to and approval by the Director. In
the event of a change of ownership, or a name change, the permittee must submit a
completed Name/Ownership Change form signed by both parties, to the State,
accompanied by the supporting documentation. The approval of this request will be
considered on its merits and may or may not be approved.
2. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such time
as the Division approves a request to transfer the permit.
3. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the State, in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including
those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of additional or
replacement stormwater management systems.
6. The permittee grants DEQ Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
7. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated. The
permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of
a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance or termination does
not stay any permit condition.
Page 3 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
8. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
9. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and
are enforceable parts of the permit.
10. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as
allowed by the laws, rules and regulations contained in Session Law 2006-246, Title
15A NCAC 21-1.1000, and NCGS 143-215.1 et.al.
11. The permittee shall notify the Division in writing of any name, ownership or mailing
address changes at least 30 days prior to making such changes.
12. The permittee shall submit a renewal request with all required forms and
documentation at least 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit.
Permit issued this the 6th day of February, 2018.
Original signed by Robert D. Patterson
for William E. Toby Vinson, Jr., P.E., CPESC, CPM
Interim Director Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Page 4 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
TAC Southstone, LLC
Southstone
Union County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/
full time) the construction of the project,
(Project Name)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
SEAL
Signature
Registration Number
Date
Submit to: NCDEQ-DEMLR Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Page 1 of 1

Ct
Un
Maps/Plans

7
It'
(47 Nark to
Leval Ln
'Qb
47,
r
s�
417
Coe
p
The Divide' � 40
lip
.fit h
" mnarnara Or
a`
eke Or
0
Kinde, Oak Or
011 Or
N T
1q, 1'J
P`L:io
to bing
Mef
Mint Hill
�r
eW5 ` SITE
Stallings
Indian Trail
r. .
�_! 0 2015 Microsoft Corporation
b biny ® 2015 Nokia
t.a WYers Rd
n
L �a
a a'�
�L
'f
C ebb Gia`
0,4
® 2015 Microsoft Corporation 0 2015 Nokia
SOUTHSTONE
SHEET1 EPG Union Co., NC
OF 25
VICINITY MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION
Drawn By: I Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE:
1/27/15

.rnrowbrook Dr6 r1 r �`' '
• .
. ,�, Fiat National Bank
Bellacino's pizza & Grinders 41
'p L41 r f
�D
M�\1 House �
.� ar
� r
�a� l
rds Are First
�c
OWN4M
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
[e-mail]
[phone]
www.wetlands-epg.com
10
1 ..
Terrace
grook9reen
�
Y
a
Lake Dr
A
o
' r }
A' .
OWN4M
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
[e-mail]
[phone]
www.wetlands-epg.com

}
r
. � f
f## t fA.AS
.
.,,s • .. ••._,• k t
*10
30
1414
{ �� n � �� 6th • R . 3 f �� � t# � � °
s
g� q
- SITE
!
d x
t 3 f t
m
t • a
it P
,/40.
x e
`
y.
t♦ +
LOCATION SCALE Stripa`t
Lat: 35.1344 °N 1:24,000 ' ..
Long: 80.6217 °W ACRES USGS QUAD i:,. , • • N
HUC: 03040105 87.1 Midland, NC
SOUTHSTONE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
SHEET 3 Union CO., NC NRN LSR
OF 25
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group DATE:
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC. USGS MAP — WATERS OF THE U.S.
\ EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 1/27/15 /
04A 1177 SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION

BaB
A( s
S cA
TuB.
e, Or
'TuB
SN
w
,7i'Tl L� � �
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Grc
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
len. rind [e-mail]
[phone]
www.wetiands-epg.com
GsB _ ,
TaB
i
S
CmB
aB
GsB
CmB
aB
� q -
i
CmB:
! BaB

SHEET 5
OF 25
STEVENS MILL ROAD - TROTTER Drawn By
Union CO., NC NRN
NCRS MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION
Reviewed By:
LSR
DATE:
1/27/15

SHEET 7
OF 25
operties Owned by:
ter Properties LLC
cingbird Lane, Suite 900
arlotte, INC 28209
_ A
lml�mm 7"mawkill
PID# 07033011
PID# 07033002A
SOUTHSTONE
Union Co., INC
7 --
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
HAC LSR
DATE:
PARCEL MAP — WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 5/9/16
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION

4 , '
•La.a.l :, >,i1 Q.vlyd1tile.,. _I I �\�t •\
' f 1
( +
ti f1
I
1 'Y
•• ��' WATERS OF THE US j
�- PERENNIAL RPW C
-Loc C/L & Width
Onsite
-Verified by NCDENR
on 6/29/17
-Subject to Goose I
/00"
Creek Buffer Rules '
WATERS OF THE US
INTERMITTENT RPW A —.f,
-Al Loc C/L & Width
Onsite
-Verified by NCDENR
on 6/29/17
-Subject to Goose
Creek Buffer Rules WATERS OF THE
r US ABUTTING
t1— WETLAND �'.•�--.
—}--- 'r-� 131-10, -1310/61 ~ " ••� ••••• -.'
-Verified by
4e. NCDENR on _
6/29/17
Gully/Swale
Y -Not Subject to
.-
t- :� ' �j Goose Creek
Buffer Rules
I i Y
(^_ fir,! X�`'�
WATERS OF THE US INTERMITTENT RPW D
-D3 Loc C/L & Width to C RPW , 4
-Verified by NCDENR on 6/29/17
-Not subject to Goose Creek Buffer Rules (Not on USGS
or NCRS Map)
-Subject to Typical State and Local Buffer/Setback Rules
C'S ITE VERIFIED BY NCDEQ ON 6/29/17 - I
SOLITHSTONE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
SHEET 8 Union Co., NC NRN LSR
OF 25
DELINEATION MAP DATE:
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 7/14/17
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
\ SUBJECT TO USA CE VERIFICATION

\
E—NG 20' SE'.fR E.SE T .NO �' \
a
GGGNTY PURUC xGRNG Ga 6— PGs 6
PERENNIAL
\ PossRrc ExrnNc X, - \
M.T,NE.s . N.xN. `�. 1// STREAM "C' ; T /�- -A
T Z, / / \ 18 LF r,.
Elusnxc iErePNGNE
ca.P.Nr E.s2xEN
V oR ns. PG 431 -
\ aT ,`.
E L scwmER uncj NRr % \
- NTERMITTENT x i°Ab �'r
r oosnro iuma_ STREAM A..
DO
r\ +/679
M EXISTING surrror�ro+rr ,'+.
VENS MILL ROAD
y 9TA
DB 186, PG 181
(60' PUBLIC R/W) 'Yr, ' Lz. `• ` "�[w oniaf� ^ iy'�- ��'\
t
�.� INTERMITTENT t \
STREAM A"
I1i2• Gx.rci Ro.o /�i •`e'4 f 66 LF
ar-suaur—/ n r WFFUt
'f
S'Nl 11
Pcc sEAP. NT
nu Es E ENE >. 3
_� EXISTING \ r- rf ' + rLarsmrurl
L G<. APRIL LANE ` I } s'; °"E"ITO'
EXISTING E �� (50' PUBLIC R/W) AV /�i !-���\` ---�
FAIRFIELD DRIVE— G„r,,,EG \,/ l ,A `i, '
orE WETLAND "B" �t Vi
2,032 SOFT i ` —
0.05 ACRES 2. DRACNAGEIUIC UT PG N P og \\ ``' '�
L _--
'c A, Pc r�o. r _ `� -\T u \STREAM
TTEN D' -
ExmNG zo STE— Nu 1,095 LF Enmxo oNE r
cxossxc in PR v.iE s -D (- — + ,'i uncs
EA -ENT De imNswu416, PG 32tioN i 4 ;� ,1 sv amtui `r — W
EXISTING
DROOKEGREEN TERRACE
(50' PUBLIC R/W)EIISING Rr
..N N.NNorc
\r f t ry,- Iia
WETLAND i' B — — w
2
,031, SOFT J �
WETLAND E � .,.x � Q'•05 ACRk S — I
44 SQ. FT (C' •y '' ----� x
0.001 ACRES /
EXISTING - zl r �
FIELDSTONE LANE� I
(60' PUBLIC R/W)
coN IT 11 i
PROPERLY NxE� i / �4 -.. �-.........
GRAPHIC SCALE-4� w
500 0 250 500 1000 / \\ 6I
\ F1-1 2.' ' SENER EwYNENT wM
CTION E—ExT
PC]z+
1 inch = 500 ft.
n
Lf7
p oN N
w
u r O
I
W
a F cx
� A
M MCADAMS

EXISTING
✓ENS MILL ROAD
DB 186, PG IBI
(60' PUBLIC R/W)
I� I
I
I
rcc.cc,.z _J_1 L_I /
r
EXISTING
FAIRFIELD DRIVE--/ �\
\
IMPACT AREA -1 (SEE SHEETS 3-5)
STREAM"A" 207 LF DISTURBANCE
WETLAND •B": 2032 SQ. FT
(0.05 ACRES) DISTURBANCE
EXISTING
BROOKEGREEN TERRACE
(50' PUBLIC R/W)
1 inch = 500 ft.
IMPACT AREA -2 (SEE SHEETS 6-8)
STREAM "C': 108 LF DISTRBANCE
SEE SHEET {10 �.
�j d
,
EXISTING
FIELDSTONE LANE
(60' PUBLIC R/W)
r Ln
N
o w
o ,� O
W
U d
VI D
�0 MCADAMS
A
\
\
--1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pz
_ —
— x0
I
---I
x
I
---,i
9
I
I
�CRSO�wC�I➢ SEMEA UYNENi
MlH
r Ln
N
o w
o ,� O
W
U d
VI D
�0 MCADAMS

EXISTING FENCE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING 20
STEVENS MILL \\ l
CROSSING LP
PRIVATE SEWER
EASEMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
DB 1416, PG 324
DB 1432, PG 458TEMPORARY
\ \
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS IMPACT: t 40�
LF REQUIRED TO\ -
INSTALL CULVERT
AND ASSOCIATED \
FEATURES s
LIMITS OF V�
DISTURBANCE
(TYP.) LD
HEADWALL (TYP.)
3:1 SLOPE
2:1 SLOPE
GRAPHIC
510 0 25 50 00
1 inch 1
EXISTING SEWER LIFT
INTERMITTENT
STREAM "A" 60"
CMP CULVERT
IMPACT: t 157 LF
3:1 SLOPE
2:1 SLOPE "ENDWALL (TYP.)
IMPACT LEGEND
UNDISTURBED STREAM
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
IMPACT: t 10 LF
REQUIRED TO
INSTALL CULVERT
AND ASSOCIATED
FEATURES
201-11901"21101=612
BANK (TYP.)
PROPERTY LINE
(TYP.)
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS IMPACT
PERMANENT CULVERT IMPACT
WETLAND "B"
-
IMPACT AREA:
2,032 SQ.FT
N
(0.05 AC)
3:1 SLOPE
\
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
\ �_ '635_
(TYP.)
1
EXISTING GRADE
RIP -RAP APRON
\
FOR 60" CMP
\ \ \ \\ \
PROPOSED
��o \
STREAM CHANNEL
2:1 SLOPE "ENDWALL (TYP.)
IMPACT LEGEND
UNDISTURBED STREAM
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
IMPACT: t 10 LF
REQUIRED TO
INSTALL CULVERT
AND ASSOCIATED
FEATURES
201-11901"21101=612
BANK (TYP.)
PROPERTY LINE
(TYP.)
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS IMPACT
PERMANENT CULVERT IMPACT

• ooeo •ars 9oc
S�T�I
ses" r•x OMMM
LLM •moo wm
l ows
Ames of ¢9m
WOM
R W II[j 1BWZ rr,
I
O
co
'OM 'SNOJSRMO9 m
VN nCHV"J I�iLDION ''SJNtllUS JO NMQL
�7.i�LoisHi i os
SZ JO £i IHIHS
LLOZ-LL-LL :cava
0310N SV
:aw3s
O
O
O
N

EXISTING 20' SEWER
EASEMENT AND EXISTING
EXISTING 10' TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
TO UNION COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DB 6409,
PG 516
EXISTING TOP -
OF BANK
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS IMPACT: t 15 LF
REQUIRED TO INSTALL
CULVERT AND ASSOCIATED
FEATURES
HEADWALL (TYP.)
e�y�•»a
RESTORATION OF THE
STREAM BUFFER WILL
INCLUDE:
CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL (SIZE 1
GALLON/ AT 260 STEMS/ACRE)
-TO BE PLANTED OUTSIDE OF THE
PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT
QUERCUS ALBA (WHITE OAK), QUERCUS
RUBRA (RED OAK), LIRIODENDRON
TULIPIFERA (TULIP POPLAR),
LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA (SWEETGUM),
ULMUS RUBRA (SLIPPERY ELM)
NATIVE STABILIZATION SEED MIX -
WITHIN ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF
STREAM BUFFER (20-25 LBS. PER
ACRE):
ELYMUS VIRGINICUS (VIRGINIA WILD RYE), 6
TRIPSACUM DACTYLOIDES (EASTERN 2 2�
GAMMAGRASS), PANICUM VIRGATUM
(SWITCHGRASS), AGROSTIS SCABRA }
(ROUGH BENTGRASS), CAREX I
VULPINOIDEA (FOX SEDGE), TRIDENS
FLAVUS (PURPLE TOP), SCHIZACHYRIUM
SCOPARIUM (LITTLE BLUESTEM),
COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA (LANCE LEAF I
TICKSEED), SORGHASTRUM NUTANS
(INDIAN GRASS), ELYMUS HYSTRIX
(BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS) FESTUCA OVINA
VAR. DURIUSCALA (HARD FESCUE), / J
RUDBECKIA HIRTA (BLACKEYED SUSAN) / \
BUFFER TO BE REESTABLISHED WITH NATIVE SPECIES.
WOODED CORRIDOR TO BE REPLANTED AT 260 STEMS/ACRE.
PERMANNET MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO BE RESEEDED
WITH NATIVE STABILIZATION MIX. PLEASE REFER TO THE
RESTORATION BUFFER NOTE FOR SPECIES TYPE AND SIZE.
13OHL tb9 LF OF SS
UNDER THE STREAM
TO THE PROPOSED
MANHOLE. CORE
FROM INSIDE TO
GRAPHIC SCALE MAKE CONNECTION.
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
t 57 LF 96" CMP CULVERT
IMPACT
EXISTING GRADE
3:1 SLOPE
3:1 SLOPE
100' STREAM
BUFFER (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
(TYP.)
2:1 SLOPE
ENDWALL (TYP.)
RIP -RAP APRON
FOR CULVERT
PERENNIAL STREAM
"C" RIP -RAP: f 3:
LF. RIP -RAP APROI
WILL BE INSTALLED
TO MATCH THE
EXISTING STREAM
BED ELEVATION.
20'L x 14'W x 7'D
BORE PIT. 10'
FROM TOP OF
BANK
LEGEND
UNDISTURBED STREAM
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS IMP
PERMANENT CULVERT IMPACT
E¢
0
Ln
N
w
H
W
W
x
Cn
CONTOURS LACED AT PRE -CONSTRUCTION J}11,, J McAnAMs

+
0
0
Y:
L SCATS. AS NOTED SOV 1 HS V ,
�J ��
neTs' 11-17-2017 TOWN OF STAUINGS, NORTH CAROINiA =c.
Wmy
TAC SOU HSTONE, ILC. HBe ii
cm.dnft xaem amity Mri
SHEET 15 OF 25 C A,, 70L�.09W-1°yam
IMPACT AREA 2 - PROFILE MW�/AM`S

30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00
HORIZONTAL SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
VERTICAL SCALE
5 0 2.5 5 10
1 inch = 5 ft.
p
N
N
O
o
N
w
O
z
N
I
~
w
w
w
e
a
'J
McADwMs

DISTURBED AREA WITHIN THE
BUFFER IS TO BE REPLANTED TEMPORARY PROPERTY LINE
AND MAINTAINED PER THE CONSTRUCTION
BUFFER RESTORATION PLAN. CORRIDOR (TYP.)
100' STREAM
BUFFER (TYP.)
20' DRAINAGE AND
UTILITIES EASEMENT
(PC A, PG 179A) 20'L x 1O'W x 5'D
2/ / \ ` o\ / I BORE PIT. 10'
EXISTING TOP \ / / \ / FROM TOP OF
OF BANK / o w BANK
0
BORE ±54 LF OF SS
UNDER THE STREAM
TO THE EXISTING o�
MANHOLE. CORE\ -
FROM INSIDE TOw LIMITS OF �o
MAKE CONNECTION. / �➢ 1 / DISTURBANCE
I �
\ \/ (TYP.) 1,
EXISTING SANITARY N
SEWER MANHOLE o \� I\ I PROPOSED 20'
(TYP.) �. / , I SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
RESTORATION OF THE STREAM
60 A V� x - -
BUFFER WILL INCLUDE. �� \
CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL (SIZE 1 GALLON/ AT 260
STEMS/ACRE)
-TO BE PLANTED OUTSIDE OF THE PERMANENT \ \ \ \
ACCESS EASEMENT v` \ \
QUERCUS ALBA (WHITE OAK), QUERCUS RUBRA (RED o
OAK), LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA (TULIP POPLAR),
LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA (SWEETGUM), ULMUS RUBRA \ \ \ \ \ \ �\ 20' STEVENS MILL CROSSING
(SLIPPERY ELM)SEWER EASEMENT WITH
NATIVE STABILIZATION SEED MIX - WITHIN ALL \ \ \ I I CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
_ 20 DB 1416, PG 324
DISTURBED AREAS OF STREAM BUFFER (20-25 LBS. °' f \ DB 1432, PG 458
PER ACRE):
ELYMUS VIRGINICUS (VIRGINIA WILD RYE), TRIPSACUM\ A\ CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
DACTYLOIDES (EASTERN GAMMAGRASS), PANICUM \ \� 1.5' OFF PROPERTY LINE
VIRGATUM (SWITCHGRASS), AGROSTIS SCABRA (ROUGH V o
BENTGRASS), CAREX VULPINOIDEA (FOX SEDGE), \ \
TRIDENS FLAVUS (PURPLE TOP), SCHIZACHYRIUM �\
SCOPARIUM (LITTLE BLUESTEM), COREOPSIS
LANCEOLATA (LANCE LEAF TICKSEED), SORGHASTRUM EXISTING SANITARY
NUTANS (INDIAN GRASS), ELYMUS HYSTRIX
(BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS) FESTUCA OVINA VAR. SEWER LINE (TYP.)
DURIUSCALA (HARD FESCUE), RUDBECKIA HIRTA EXISTING LOT GRAPHIC SCALE
(BLACKEYED SUSAN) LINE (TYP.)
BUFFER TO BE REESTABLISHED WITH NATIVE SPECIES. 40 0 20 40 80
WOODED CORRIDOR TO BE REPLANTED AT 260 STEMS/ACRE.
PERMANNET MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO BE RESEEDED
WITH NATIVE STABILIZATION MIX. PLEASE REFER TO THE 1. inch= 4O ft. }J
RESTORATION BUFFER NOTE FOR SPECIES TYPE AND SIZE.
r
u')
N
�
o
`i
w
O
I
�
W
d
U
n
F
6
a
J
MCADAMS

LAURA A. & CHRISTOPHER FARLEY 11
g
I DB 6784, PG 589 I \ U I t
\ PID 7054173 60�
eo�, 1 PROPERTY LINE '$�
I I
0 1 5 (TYP.)
/
100' STREAM � / �
CONSTRUCTION OPROPERTYELINET
EXISTING SANITARY f
BUFFER SEWER MANHOLE —� 20' STEVENS MILL
1p 20 CROSSING LP SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY I �� �N\5 EASEMENT WITH A
SEWER LINE • I I I / CONSTRUCTION EASEMEN
DB 1416, PG 324
I V
BORE ±59 LF OF SS UNDER . I I l ool \ / I DB 1432, PG 458
THE STREAM TO THE PROPOSED l \Il
MANHOLE. CORE FROM INSIDE I V 201 x10'W x 5'D
TO MAKE CONNECTION, BORE PIT. 10'
I FROM TOP OF
CLAY M. & JILL P. COFFEY I I �o ° I I I — ' 1. BANK 3
DB 5753, PG 430 LIMITS OF a
PID 7054172
L U) / / DISTURBANCE z
q W
I� PROPOSEO
D DOGHOUSE I m
MANHOLE (TYP.)
7,5' TEMPORARY N O Z Z
CONSTRUCTION7.5' 7
RESTORATION OF THE STREAM EASEMENT
BUFFER WILL INCLUDE:
o
PROPOSED
CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL (SIZE 1 GALLON/ AT 260 —SANITARY SEWER
STEMS/ACRE) EXISTING TOP �, I L �` =MANHOLE (TYP.) 3Q
-TO BE PLANTED OUTSIDE OF THE PERMANENT _OF BANK
ACCESS EASEMENT7 6BUFFER TO BE Q d v
QUERCUS ALBA (WHITE OAK), QUERCUS RUBRA (RED I v`� J I I 4. [�
` REESTABLISHED WITH 0 O a
OAK), LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA (TULIP POPLAR), I \ 0
LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA (SWEETGUM), ULMUS RUBRA / \ I �, t•, �DW�A
INATIVE SPECIES.(SLIPPERY ELM) I I /YY: N I WOODED CORRIDOR a
/ I� III[0 705P16� 211 I TO BE REPLANTED AT ~
NATIVE STABILIZATION SEED MIX - WITHIN ALL o oo I / I ' - 260 STEMS/ACRE.
DISTURBED AREAS OF STREAM BUFFER (20-25 LBS. 4? P P 6�. E
PER ACRE): I / \ PERMANNET
ELYMUS VIRGINICUS (VIRGINIA WILD RYE), TRIPSACUM MAINTENANCE a
DACTYLOIDES (EASTERN GAMMAGRASS), PANICUM I I I I I I I I \ \ EASEMENT TO BE _
VIRGATUM (SWITCHGRASS), AGROSTIS SCABRA (ROUGH RESEEDED WITH 3
BENTGRASS), CAREX VULPINOIDEA (FOX SEDGE), NATIVE STABILIZATION Ln
TRIDENS FLAVUS (PURPLE TOP), SCHIZACHYRIUM I / MIX. PLEASE REFER TO o CV
SCOPARIUM (LITTLE BLUESTEM), COREOPSIS 0 p 0 w
LANCEOLATA (LANCE LEAF TICKSEED), SORGHASTRUM THE RESTORATION 0 't I C)
NUTANS (INDIAN GRASS), ELYMUS HYSTRIX BUFFER NOTE FOR II 00
(BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS) FESTUCA OVINA VAR. SPECIES TYPE AND a
DURIUSCALA (HARD FESCUE), RUDBECKIA HIRTA SIZE. W
(BLACKEYED SUSAN) GRAPHIC SCALE W
40 0 20 40 80 o e F
1 inch = 40 ft. }
"J MCADAMS

1�1
mu u
r �
N
CN w
L0 r O
I W
d F V1
m a
J MCADAMS
DISCHARGE
LOCATION
\ /
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
\
FACILITY'D"
� �
(WATER QUALITY
,(
STORMWATER '
POND)
�l l` �,
.
MANAGEMENT
"F"/
..
/' ;�A
�' --may
�
A
FACILITY
l
/
(STORWMATER
•
/
` WETLAND)DISCH
I
LOCATION AE
EXISTING
VENS MILL ROAD
DB 186, PG 181
1
(60PUBLIC R/W)
DISCHARGE
LOA
T, 101N
f
r
`•'STORM'
I
,N I
," ,4 NATER STORMWATER ,
' F= _=
:MANAGEMENT
FACILITY "E"
..-\MANAGEMENT
4
\ FACILITY C
-(
�'STORWMATER
n .0
V
\ (STORWMATER
'
I
I 1
---
I` vWETLAND)
I
�� WETLAND) i i roar
1 —
I _ EXISTING ,`�'
L / ��
APRIL LANE
�\ : t i F. .7'..._---�
EXISTING %
_1� / �'
�� .- (50' PUBLIC R/W)
DISCHARGE
V LOCATION
FAIRFIELD DRIVE—/
\
`\ / 11 r
�' II
�
—�
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
"B"
\i
FACILITY
(WATER QUALITY
POND)
,
DISCHARGE\
�
EXISTING
BROOKGREEN TERRACE-
` 1 ,{
DISCHARGE
LOCATION 1.
;LOCATION 1
—
(50' PUBLIC R/W)
/,
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA=27.55%
OF SITE
W' Jr 'y'
�
�
�
--zW
z
\ �DISCHARGEv
r
.+,...' LOCATION
EXISTING
FIELDSTONE LANE
(60' PUBLIC R/W) STORMWATER"
MANAGEMENT !°
FACILITY
(STORWMATER
GRAPHIC SCALE
WETLAND) �
•-\ i
`I -"--J
'
\\
500
0 250 500
1000
r
1 inch = 500 ft.
1�1
mu u
r �
N
CN w
L0 r O
I W
d F V1
m a
J MCADAMS

SHEET 20 SOUTHSTONE ENHANCEMENT PLAN VIEW
OF 25 Union Co., NC
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC. TEMPORARY ACCESS OVERVIEW MAP
\[e-mail]-WATERS OF THE U.S:
. EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
&,i, , & d _ D . o „ SUBJECT TO USA CEINCDEQ VERIFICATION
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE: /
2/8/18

SHEET 21 OF 25
OVERALL PROJECT GOALS
(1) STABILIZE ERODING AREAS W/COIR FIBER
BLANKET/MATTING
(2) INSTALL COIR FIBER LOGS AT TOE OF SLOPE
(3) RE-ESTABLISH NATIVE VEGETATION W/SEED & LIVE
STAKE/CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL (MARCH 2018 OR
OCTOBER 2018 - MARCH 2019)
(4) RESTORATION SIMILAR TO THIS CONCEPT WILL BE
IMPLEMENTED AT ALL PROPOSED TEMPORARY ACCESS
LOCATIONS
Materials List:
1. Coir Fiber Logs: Diam. 12", Length 10'
2. Wooden Stakes: Length 3'
3. Erosion Fabric: Coir Fiber Matting - NO PLASTIC
4. Sod Pins: 1,000+
Live Stakes/Containerized Material (3' on center):
L
amomum (Silky Dogwood), Salix caroliniana (Carolina
), Salix sericea (Silky Willow), Sambucus canadensis
erry), Symphoricarpos orbiculatus (Coralberry)
Containerized Material (9' on center):
Quercus alba (White Oak), Quercus rubra (Red Oak),
Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip Poplar), Liquidambar styrocifhra
(Sweetgum), Ulmus rubra (Slippery Elm)
CENTER LINE +/-
2:1 SLOPE
LIVE STAKES/
CONTAINER
2
12" COIR
v
FIBER LOG
SEED & STRAW W/NATIVE
SEED MIX AND REPLANT
TREES IN DISTURBED
AREAS WITHIN 30' OF
STREAM 9' ON CENTER
(SEED & STRAW IN S/L)
'•, /
DISTURBED STREAM BANKS
I ✓
TO BE SEEDED W/NATIVE
MIX, MATED &
PLANTED/LIVE STAKED 3' ON
TOE OF SLOPE
CENTER - FROM TOP TO TOE
OF SLOPE
Native Stabilization Seed Mix (20-25 lbs. per acre):
Elymus virginicus (Virginia wild rye), Tripsacum dactyloides (Eastern
gammagrass), Panicum virgatum (Switchgrass), Agrostis scabra (Rough
bentgrass), Carex vulpinoidea (Fox sedge), Tridens flavus (Purple top),
Schizachyrium scoparium (Little bluestem), Coreopsis lanceolata (Lance
leaf tickseed), Sorghastrum nutans (Indian grass), Elymus hystrix
(Bottlebrush grass) Festuca ovina var. duriuscala (Hard Fescue), Rudbeckia
hirta (Blackeved Susan)
SOUTHSTONE ENHACEMENT SECTION
Union Co., NC
ENHANCEMENT PLAN — WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USA CEINCDEQ VERIFICATION
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE: /
1/8/18

N
4-J
N
E
Ln
N
N
0
Q
N
O
.4-J
M
u
O
J
Crossing Locations
Assessments

Photo 1: View of Intermittent Stream A at Crossing 1. Channel within this area
impacted by adjacent pump station and access road (upstream/north).
Southstone
Union County, NC - Photos taken on 1/15/2018
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC.

a

Photo 3: View of Perennial Stream C near proposed Crossing 2. Channel within
this area impacted by adjacent access roads and sewer line easements
(upstream/north).
Southstone
Union County, NC - Photos taken on 1/15/2018
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner• PLLC.

0

property, Identity and number all reaches on the attached map, and Include a separate form for each reach. See the IVC: SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): SouthStone 2. Date of evaluation: 1/15/18
3. Applicant/owner name: TAC Southstone, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: D.Kuefler/WEPG
5. County: Union 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin-PeeDee on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Goose Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.1355 N / -80.6236 W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: r Perennial flow r Intermittent flow r Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: r Mountains (M) (: Piedmont (P) ` Inner Coastal Plain (1) i Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic \ l
valley shape (skip for a �- r b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip (o Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) " Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi) r Size 4 (>> 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? fo Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r I r II r III r IV r V)
r Essential Fish Habitat (- Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
j- Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r Yes is No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
r A Water throughout assessment reach.
(: B No flow, water in pools only.
r C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
(: A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
r B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
(: A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
(" B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
{: A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
C B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10% of channel unstable
r B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
(: C > 25% of channel unstable

leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r 1 Other: adjacent pump station/ access roadway altering stream (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
f: C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
r Yes r: No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. r Yes I: No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses -ffi E r F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergento r H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation o r I Sand bottom
F- C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
F D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots U r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. r Yes (: No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
j7, A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
(: {' ( { (" Bedrock/saprolite
{: (` r (' (' Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
(" [e (' (` ("' Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
(" { (: Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
{ ("' f+ r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
r r (: ( Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
r r {: r r Detritus
{: r r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d r Yes r No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Stream Site Name SouthStone
Stream Category Pal
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Date of Evaluation
Assessor Name/Organization
1/15/18
D.Kuefler/WEPG
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

user manuar version c. -i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): SouthStone
2. Date of evaluation: 1/15/18
3. Applicant/owner name: TAC Southstone, LLC
4. Assessor name/organization: D.KueflerANEPG
5. County: Union
6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin Pee -dee
on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Goose Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.1350 N / -80.6202 W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream C
10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):
3 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 7
13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ( Yes ( No
14. Feature type: (+' Perennial flow Intermittent flow
C Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (' Mountains (M) (: Piedmont (P)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for (: a
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ( Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) (: Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
( Inner Coastal Plain (1) (' Outer Coastal Plain (0)
(' b
(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) r Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (+ Yes (' No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water (- Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( (' I (' II (' III (' IV (- V)
r Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property (- NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? Yes • No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
(- A Water throughout assessment reach.
(7 B No flow, water in pools only.
r C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
(" A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
(: B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
(" A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
(: B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
(' A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
fo B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
(' A < 10% of channel unstable
t: B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
(' C > 25% of channel unstable

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

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. (— Yes h"' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. (- No Water (: Other: Frozen
12b. (- Yes (" No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa' for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverviorts lichens and algal mats)
r r Beetles Qnciuding water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphlpod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly. fishfly dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P)
r r Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A r A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
f+' B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
( C (7 C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
(~ A f" A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water > 6 inches deep
(' B C B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
f: C C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
C Y (' Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r N (: N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
I- B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors —assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
F, C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
C A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
(: B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
( C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

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

Stream Site Name SouthStone
Stream Category Pat
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Date of Evaluation
Assessor Name/Organization
1/15/18
D.Kuefler/WEPG
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

jurisdictional
Determination Information

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http•//www saw usace army.mil/Missions/Re ug latoryPennitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: 910-251-4633
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 88.1 Acres at Stevens Mill Road
City, State:
County:
Stallings, NC 28104
Union
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): Please see attached Parcel M
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, WEPG
Mailing Address: 10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
Charlotte NC 28277
Telephone Number: 704-904-2277
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
0 I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
1-1 Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION'
Name: Trotter Properties LLC
Mailing Address: 3121 Springbank Lane, Suite C
CHARLOTTE NC 28226
Telephone Number: 704-523-1783
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
I Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION3,4
By signing below, I 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, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
r j ; s eg LL(C
Print Name V tli01" 1 M1}CS ce" „-� c,
Capacity: 0✓ Owner ❑ Authorized Agents
Date
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
nI intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
F] I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
nI intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
nI intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
H
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
nI believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
F] Other:
For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area 88. 1 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
Longitude: -80.6217 W
35.1344 N
aA legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
✓❑ Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latory-Permit-
Program/Juri sdi ction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
✓❑ USGS Topographic Map
W1 Soil Survey Map
aOther Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
zLandscape Photos (if taken)
171 NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
aNC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/re ug latory/regdocs/JD/RGL 08-02 App A Prelim JD Form fillable.pdf
Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

_'_ "`� ,.I` _ i. Q�.w Ili& l}r+ueR t a� � 1 �''t� { 1 ..✓'
[k1alnl ;ra .rnJl ( 1 ti t
eiiiiiWATERS OF THE US i
PERENNIAL RPW C
1
-Loc C/L & Width
• • • Onsite
-Verified by NCDENR
on 6/29/17 j
q
-Subject to Goose
Creek Buffer Rules
ti
i
I
WATERS OF THE US
INTERMITTENT RPW A
-Al Loc C/L & Width �' •'� -��' I
Onsite ♦�� ?
-Verified by NCDENR
on 6/29/17 '4 ,
Y' -Subject to Goose -'
Creek Buffer Rules WATERS OF THE
US ABUTTING
r
— WETLAND B ��•.
61-101 -B10/B1 •'.� .. _ {
r -Verified by �! ?
r' 1 NCDENR on
6/29/17`
i Gully/Swale !Y
a -Not Subject to
f Goose Creek
i '' l •'•••• Buffer Rules
WATERS OF THE US INTERMITTENT RPW D
-D1 Loc C/L & Width to C RPW
-Verified by NCDENR on 6/29/17 f�
-Not subject to Goose Creek Buffer Rules (Not on USGS
or NCRS Map) ;RYYr°�< \ ! a •,.�
-Subject to Typical State and Local Buffer/Setback Rules ` .l
SITE VERIFIED BY NCDEQ ON 6/29/17 -
SOUTHSTONE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
SHEET 23 Union Co., NC NRN LSR
OF 25
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group DELINEATION MAP DATE:
leonar• -WATERS OF THE U.S.- 7/14/17
1 [phone] [e-mail] CONDITIONS STUDY /
SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION

�°Ri`atr• ^'� 9 SITE VERIFIED BY NCDEQ ON 6/29/17
AND BY USACE ON 3/22/18-
- lkuaad p- u r
PROJECTBOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
STREAM
FORMA
i w
1 f-•
5-6 WETLAND B
DATA FORM
PERENNIAL STREAM C
2 -818 LF r
r. r
INTERMITTENT STREAM A -
-745 LF l
UPLAND
DP1
r
WETLAND B
0.05 AC �-
STRE
FORr.
—+t -- r ,
8
s'
t
INTERMITTENT STREAM D ;�` '*•
-1095 LF
C GEHD
WETLAND E r
Project boundary study limits _f _f \ ti/•.
PV Waters of the US RPW 0.001 AC '
0 Waters of the US Wetland
Landscape photo direction,'f�!
SOLITHSTONE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
SHEET 24 Union Co., NC NRN LSR
OF 25
- • c . DATE:
DELINEATION MAP
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 7/14/17
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION

:! .:tet .�: .�• _. J' t _r�5 �'"•• ,. --„4 qua} �'i� -'"+}`.-�. �""� �R s'
if
r y �
9{ r ►S z
�t i j�. : �`'.'�`:. > •y Mk'�. yet i. - -�
,.,,�- � x �� • ' � � eft
mow:
10
•:k 1
f� <<• .. h 4 �_ I� y
...Pw
or Wt
a

�.r
a
�
,p� • ;
t
- �� � ry �.•,�„�, �-shy+, �"�11 � • „ ' ..
... tj • #.+� -tel +i. •�„j
c
t
4
{ 4
.. 14.E w t '8' t 1l' lva P��i' - ;' � • • `�• "� 4 `'
a

WATERS OF THE US WETLAND B - PHOTO 5
WATERS OF THE US WETLAND B - PHOTO 6
Southstone
Union Co., NC -7/14/17
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. ILndner, PLLC.

a7'
EROSIONAL CHANNEL UPSLOPE OF STREAM D ORIGIN - PHOTO 8
Southstone
Union Co., NC -7/14/17
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date: 7/14/17 1 Evaluator: I NRN Eastin : -80.6240
Project: Southstone: Intermittent Stream A Northing: 35.1360
Total Points: 11
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30* 25.0
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarizepoints)
A. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Biology
Subtotal
Geomorphology
Subtotal
man-maae aitcnes are not ratea: see aiscussion in ivy uvvu ivranuai
R_ Hvdminnv
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No =
0
Yes = 3
0
3
Crayfish
0
0.5
Hydrology Subtotal
1.5
C_ Bioloav
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20.
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23.
Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=
0.75, OBL= 1.5, Other= 0
0
Biology
Subtotal
4.0
* nerenninl ,trpams may alsn he identified usina other methods. See naae 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Appears that machinery crossed the feature approximately 35' above Wetland B.
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
(version 4.11)
Origins.

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date: 7/14/17 1 Evaluator: I NRN Eastin : -80.6195
Project: Southstone: Perennial RPW C Northing: 35.1353
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30* 37.5
(riqht-click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points) j
A. Geornorphology Geomorphology
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
Hydrology
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology
Subtotal
20.0
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hvdroloqv
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0
Yes
= 3
3
Crayfish
0
0.5
Hydrology
Subtotal
10.5
C. Biologv
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20.
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
23.
Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0.75, OBL= 1.5, Other=
0
0
Biology
Subtotal
7.0
perennial streams may also be identified usinq other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Fish observed; macroinvertebrates and crayfish expected but not scored.
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
(version 4.11)
Origins.

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date: 7/14/17 1 Evaluator: I NRN Eastin : -80.6202
Project: Southstone: Intermittent RPW D Northing: 35.1305
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30* 23.0
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarizepoints)
A_ Gennnnrnholnov Absent I Weak I Moderate I Strong SCORE
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Biology
Subtotal
Geomorphology
Subtotal
12.0
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NGDWU Manual
R_ Hvdroloav
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1
Yes = 3
3
23.
Crayfish
0
Hydrology
Subtotal
8.0
C_ Bioloav
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20.
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23.
Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0.75, OBL= 1.5, Other=
0
0
Biology
Subtotal
3.0
* narannial streams may alcn he irientifiPri usinn nthPr mPthnds_ See nnae 35 of NODWO manual.
Notes:
Upper section of feature impacted by logging.
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
(version 4.11)
_Origins.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Southstone City/County: Stallings/Union Sampling Date: 7/14/17
Applicant/Owner: TAC Southstone, LLC State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland B
Investigator(s): NRN, LSR Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA Lat: 35.1354 Long: -80.6236 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: ScA: Secrest - Cid Complex NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Y No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesF No =
Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N 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= No = within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No =
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
=1surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
=True Aquatic Plants (B14)
E=Isparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
=Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
[�Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
=Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) =Moss Trim Lines (1316)
FTJWater 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)
=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 (D2)
=Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
=Shallow Aquitard (D3)
=Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic Fauna (B13)
=FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches): 0-2
Water Table Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches): 0 -
Saturation Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches): O-1 off
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9 Acer rubrum
3
5
6
7
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2 Acer rubrum
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1 Alnus serrulata
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1 Juncus effusus
2 Carex stricta
3 Dichanthelium clandestinum
q Microstegium vimineum
5.
6.
7.
10
11
12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1.
Sampling Point: Wetland B
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
25
Y FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
9
(A)
20
Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
9
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100%
(A/g)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
45
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
=Total Cover
_)
OBL species
x 1 =
10
Y FACW
FACW species
x 2 =
10
Y FAC
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
20
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
= Total Cover
01 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Y OBL 02 - Dominance Test is >50%
Q3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
Q4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
OProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
15 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
35 Y FACW Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
20 Y OBL approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
20 Y FAC (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
20 Y FAC Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
= i mai t over
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes= No=
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Wetland B
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) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-20 7.5YR 4/1 85 7.5YR 5/8 15 C PL Clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
=Histosol (A1)
=Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
=Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
=Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
=Redox Depressions (F8)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
=Umbric 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 (1721) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No =
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Southstone City/County: Stallings/Union
Aonlicant/Owner: TAC Southstone, LLC
State: NC
Investigator(s): NRN, LSR Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA Lat: 35.1354 Long: -80.6236
Soil Map Unit Name: ScA: Secrest - Cid Complex
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Y
Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic?
Sampling Date: 7/14/17
_ Sampling Point: Upland DP1
- Slope (%): 0-3
Datum:
NWI classification:
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesEENo =
(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= No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No 0✓
Remarks:
Data point was taken approximately 30' West of Wetland B.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
.Surface Soil Cracks (66)
=Surface Water (A1) =True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Elparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
=High Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (610)
=Saturation (A3) =Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
=Moss Trim Lines (1316)
=Water Marks (131) =Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
=Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
=Sediment Deposits (62) =Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
=Crayfish Burrows (C8)
=Drift Deposits (63) =Thin Muck Surface (C7)
=Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
=Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron Deposits (65)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
=Shallow Aquitard (D3)
=Water -Stained Leaves (139)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic Fauna (813)
=FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes= No= Depth
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No
(inches):
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland DP1
-
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Quercus alba
30
Y
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1
(A)
2 Fagus grandifolia
20
Y
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
5.
Total Number of Dominant
3 Juniperus virginiana
15
Y
FACU
Species Across All Strata:
9
(B)
4.
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
Percent of Dominant Species
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Tipularia discolor
5•
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
11%
(A/B)
6.
4
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
Prevalence Index worksheet:
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
7.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
65
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9
= Total Cover
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
ft (1 m) in height.
12.
OBL species
x 1 =
1 Fagus grandifolia
15
Y
FACU
FACW species
x 2 =
1 Lonicera japonica
2 Quercus alba
10
Y
FACU
FAC species
x 3 =
3 Juniperus virginiana
5
N
FACU
FACU species
x 4=
4
UPL species
x 5 =
5_
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
-
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
20
30'
= Total Cover
01 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Rubus argutus
25 Y FACU
02 - Dominance Test is >50%
2
Q3 - Prevalence Index is:53.01
=4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
5.
6.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
7.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
30'
=
25 Total Cover)
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
25 Y FACU
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Tipularia discolor
10 Y FACU
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
4
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
5.
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11.
ft (1 m) in height.
12.
Woody vine —All woody vines, regardless of height.
35 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1 Lonicera japonica
15 Y FAC
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes= No �✓
15 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland DP1
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) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/6 100 Clay
4-20 10YR 6/8 100
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
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):
RM=Reduced
Clay
Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
=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 (F19)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
=Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
= Redox Depressions (F8)
=Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
=Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
rJRed Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No =✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 12/15/17
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Trotter Properties LLC
3121 Springbank Lane, Suite C, Charlotte, NC 28226
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington, NC
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
88.1 Acres at Stevens Mill Road, Stallings, NC 28104
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Union City: Stallings
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal
format): Lat. 35.1344 ON; Long. -80.6217 °W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17N
Name of nearest waterbody: Goose Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
2651 linear feet: 10 width (ft) and/or 0.61 acres.
Cowardin Class: R3/4
Stream Flow: intermittent/Perennial
Wetlands: 0.05 acres.
Cowardin Class: PFO
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:

E
REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
❑✓ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: WEPG
✓❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
appl' nt/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑✓ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24000/Midiand, NC
❑✓ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
✓❑ Photographs: ❑✓ Aerial (Name & Date): 2016
or Other (Name & Date): Representative site Photos- 7/14/15
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑✓ Other information (please specify):
Site Visit was conducted by Alan Johnson of NCDEQ on 6/29/2017 to confirm WEPG's
delineation.
2

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
3

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be"waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
0
digitally signed by Heath Caldwell
Heath Caldwell O Caldwell,.,,
-h..ahh Caldwell-1-dG, ou.
mail=hea,h.cald14 11edandscpg.com.[=US
oa�e: zm z12 1 s inose i -0soo
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

`.
Wetland B
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
RIVERINE Area
0.05 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.1354
-80.6236 Goose Creek
Wetland E
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
RIVERINE Area
0.001 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.1307
-80.6203 Goose Creek
Intermittent Stream A
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
745 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.136
-80.624 Goose Creek
Perennial Stream C
NORTH CAROLINA
R3
Linear
818 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.1353
-80.6195 Goose Creek
Intermittent Stream D
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
1095 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.1305
-80.6202 Goose Creek

Sto rmwate r
Management Plan
and Approvals
_N
0
i
Q
Q
Q
a -J
N
E
N
0)
►9
v
E
0

Energy, Mineral
and Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
February 6, 2018
Mr. Dror Bezalel
TAC Southstone, LLC
2100 Powers Ferry Rd., Ste. 350
Atlanta, GA 30339
Subject: Stormwater Permit No. SW3171102
Southstone
Union County
Dear Mr. Bezalel:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
WILLIAM E. TOBY VINSON, JR.
Interim Director
The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR), received a complete Stormwater
Management Permit Application for the subject project on February 2, 2018. Staff review of the plans
and specifications has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater
Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 02H .1000. We are forwarding Permit No. SW3171102, dated
February 6, 2018, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the subject project and the
stormwater system. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until February 5, 2026, or
until rescinded and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein, and does not
supersede any other agency permit that may be required.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to
request an adjudicatory hearing by filing a written petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH). The written petition must conform to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes. Per
NCGS 143-215(e) the petition must be filed with the OAH within thirty (30) days of receipt of this
permit. You should contact the OAH with all questions regarding the filing fee (if a fling fee is required)
and/or the details of the filing process at 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, or via
telephone at 919-431-3000, or visit their website at www.NCOAH.com. Unless such demands are made
this permit shall be final and binding.
This project will be kept on file at the Mooresville Regional Office. If you have any questions, or need
additional information concerning this matter, please contact Robert Patterson at [phone]; or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Original signed by Robert D. Patterson
for William E. Toby Vinson, Jr., PE, CPESC, CPM
cc: SW3171102 File, Mooresville Regional Office
ec: Jon Aldridge, PE — McAdams
Paul Trotter — Trotter Properties, LLC
Chris Granelli — Altura Group
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center 1 512 N. Salisbury St. I Raleigh, NC 27699
919 707 9200 T

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North
Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
TAC Southstone, LLC
Southstone
Stevens Mill Rd., Stallings, Union County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of each Stormwater Control Measures (SCM) in
compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 02H .1000 (hereafter referred to as the
"stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater management plans, specifications and
other supporting data as on file with and approved by the State and considered a part of
this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until February 5, 2026, and shall be
subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. Each SCM is approved for the management of stormwater runoff as described in the
application documents and as shown on the approved plans.
3. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located within a dedicated
common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project will be
recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the approved
plans.
4. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area of this project
must be directed into the SCMs.
5. The built -upon areas associated with this project shall be located at least 30 feet
landward of all perennial and intermittent surface waters.
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
2. The permittee shall at all time provide the operation and maintenance necessary to
assure every SCM functions at optimum efficiency. The approved Operation and
Maintenance Plan must be followed in its entirety and maintenance must occur at
the scheduled intervals including, but not limited to:
Page 1 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing and re -vegetation of slopes and the filter strip.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of all drainage structures, level spreader, filter
media, planting media, underdrains, catch basins and piping.
g. Access to the cell and outlet structure must be available at all times.
3. Records of maintenance activities must be kept for each SCM. The reports will
indicate the date, activity, name of person performing the work and what actions
were taken. The owner shall keep maintenance records and these shall be available
upon request by the party responsible for enforcing the stormwater program under
which the SCMs were approved.
4. The permittee shall submit an annual summary report of the maintenance and
inspection records for each SCM. The report shall summarize the inspection dates,
results of the inspections, and the maintenance work performed at each inspection.
5. Each SCM shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications, the conditions of this permit, and with other supporting data.
6. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received from
an appropriate designer for each SCM certifying that each has been installed in
accordance with this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting documentation. Any deviations from the approved plans and
specifications must be noted on the Certification. A modification may be required for
those deviations.
7. SCMs impacted by sedimentation and erosion control during the construction phase
shall be cleaned out and converted to its approved design state.
8. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of all or part of the project area.
The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee, for which
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
9. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the
Permittee for a minimum of eight years from the date of the completion of
construction.
10. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or
more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in
the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director for
modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide
copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director that the changes
have been made.
Page 2 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
11. Plats for residential lots that contain SCMs shall include: the specific location of
the SCM on the lot; a typical detail for SCM to be used; and a note that the SCM on
the property has been required to meet stormwater regulations and that the property
owner may be subject to enforcement procedures as set forth in G.S. 143, Article 21
if the SCM is removed, relocated, or altered without prior approval.
12. All SCMs and associated maintenance accesses on privately owned land except
for those located on single family residential lots shall be located in permanent
recorded easements. The SCM shall be shown and labeled within the easement.
These easements shall be granted in favor of the party responsible for enforcing the
stormwater program under which the SCMs were approved. SCMs must have
access and maintenance easements to provide the legal authority for inspections,
maintenance personnel and equipment. The entire footprint of the SCM system
must be included in the access and maintenance easement, plus an additional ten
or more feet around the SCM to provide enough room to complete maintenance
tasks. This SCM system includes the side slopes, forebay, riser structure, SCM
device, and basin outlet, dam embankment, outlet, and emergency spillway.
13. The O&M Agreement shall be referenced on the final plat and shall be recorded with
the County Register of Deeds upon final plat approval. If no subdivision plat is
recorded for the site, then the O&M Agreement shall be recorded with the county
Register of Deeds so as to appear in the chain of title of all subsequent purchasers.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable except after notice to and approval by the Director. In
the event of a change of ownership, or a name change, the permittee must submit a
completed Name/Ownership Change form signed by both parties, to the State,
accompanied by the supporting documentation. The approval of this request will be
considered on its merits and may or may not be approved.
2. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such time
as the Division approves a request to transfer the permit.
3. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the State, in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including
those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of additional or
replacement stormwater management systems.
6. The permittee grants DEQ Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
7. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated. The
permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of
a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance or termination does
not stay any permit condition.
Page 3 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
8. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
9. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and
are enforceable parts of the permit.
10. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as
allowed by the laws, rules and regulations contained in Session Law 2006-246, Title
15A NCAC 21-1.1000, and NCGS 143-215.1 et.al.
11. The permittee shall notify the Division in writing of any name, ownership or mailing
address changes at least 30 days prior to making such changes.
12. The permittee shall submit a renewal request with all required forms and
documentation at least 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit.
Permit issued this the 6t" day of February, 2018.
Original signed by Robert A Patterson
for William E. Toby Vinson, Jr., P.E., CPESC, CPM
Interim Director Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Page 4 of 4

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW3171102
TAC Southstone, LLC
Southstone
Union County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/
full time) the construction of the project,
(Project Name)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
19A_1I
Signature
Registration Number
Date
Submit to: NCDEQ-DEMLR Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Page 1 of 1

Sediment and
Erosion Control
Documents
Ln
4J
E
V
0
W
O
+-j
0
U
0
'in
0
w
R

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITYIOWNERSHIP FORM
SEDIMENTATION POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
No person may initiate any land -disturbing activity on one or more acres as covered by the Act before this
form and an acceptable erosion and sedimentation control plan have been completed and approved by the
Land Quality Section, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (Please type or print and, if
the question is not applicable or the e-mail and/or fax information unavailable, place N/A in the blank.)
Part A.
1. Project Name Southstone
Location of land -disturbing activity: County Union City or Township Stallings
Highway/Street Stevens Mill/1524 Latitude Longitude
Approximate date land -disturbing activity will commence: 12/1/17
4. Purpose of development (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.): residential
5. Total acreage disturbed or uncovered (including off-site borrow and waste areas): 68 acres
6. Amount of fee enclosed: $_ 4,420 ; The application fee of $65.00 per acre (rounded
up to the next acre) is assessed without a ceiling amount (Example: a 9 -acre application fee is $585).
7. Has an erosion and sediment control plan been filed? Yes x No Enclosed x
8. Person to contact should erosion and sediment control issues arise during land -disturbing activity:
Name Chris Granelli E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Telephone [phone] Cell # 704-534-4898 Fax #
9. Landowner(s) of Record (attach accompanied page to list additional owners):
William Trotter Development Co.
Name
3101 Carnegie Blvd.. #310
Current Mailing Address
Charlotte NC 28209
City State Zip
704-525-1783
Telephone Fax Number
1515 Mockingbird Lane #900
Current Street Address
Charlotte NC 28209
City State Zip
10. Deed Book No. 4731, 5524, 310, 5524 Page No. 531, 451, 72, 56 Provide a copy of the most
current deed.
Part B.
Person(s) or firm(s) who are financially responsible for the land -disturbing activity (Provide a
comprehensive list of all responsible parties on an attached sheet):
TAC Southstone LLC tterwilli-ger@theardentcomr)anies.com
Name E-mail Address
2100 Powers Ferry Road #350
Current Mailing Address
Atlanta GA 30339
City State Zip
2100 Powers Ferry Road. #350
Current Street Address
Atlanta GA 30339
City State Zip

Telephone [phone] Fax Number.
2. (a) If the Financially Responsible Party is not a resident of North Carolina, give name and street address
of the designated North Carolina Agent:
Name E-mail Address
6 © /`l mt L.kc 01 SSC 2CO
Current Mailing Address '
R. � /k/c- s
City p State Zip
/
Telephone b 5 �— `� v 5 � 5 J
Current Street Address
City
Fax Number
State Zip
(b) If the Financially Responsible Party is a Partnership or other person engaging in business under an
assumed name, attach a copy of the Certificate of Assumed Name. If the Financially Responsible
Party is a Corporation, give name and street address of the Registered Agent:
Name of Registered Agent E-mail Address
Current Mailing Address Current Street Address
City State Zip City State Zip
Telephone Fax Number
The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and was provided
by me under oath (This form must be signed by the Financially Responsible Person if an individual
or his attorney-in-fact, or if not an individual, by an officer, director, partner, or registered agent with
the authority to execute instruments for the Financially Responsible Person). I agree to provide
corrected information should there be any change in the information provided herein.
Todd Terwilliger �iwl hof eco
Type or rint name Title or Authority
tohz /17
Signature Date
l,ocz- �` �� , a Notary Public of the County of Cn,"Vp
Gce roj I c�
State of NeAh G& kia, hereby certify that 1 pa6 J�_,2w l Li C 2 appeared
personally before me this day and being duly sworn acknowledged that the above form was
executed by him.
q'OWI go Witnew�',.•�°��notarial seal, this qday of �'flbCA , 20
d' Ti1q�.
s Notary
C°•+f C4 oma My commission expires
ccFa6�std,�T`r+ �e�,
�6aaooae0000°

AND
1.1 I
75URES 1\`
IPE SLOPE
:SIGNS
,DEALS THAT EROSION CON
1. ON-SITE BURIAL Pf
CAROUNA
L SECTION 2. ANY GRADING BOYO
VIOLATION OF NOR7
D BED. AND 3. GRADING MORE THA
PLAN IS A VIOLATED
REED AREAS = '
4. GROUND STABIUZAT
M RIPRAP, - TOMMY . RG 61 XTOMMY L BULLMD ,r AND SLOPES GREAT
fJT 191]. U. 614 DB 3409. PG 359 , WITHIN /4 DAYS 01
OYD
ROSSING h;, DBTE8126.M ]54 PID 0)0]3008801 PID 0]0]]005 1 PORTION OF THE P
TENTS AND _= -`�� PID 0]OJJOO7U ' `� , 5. ADDITIONAL MEASUR
APPROACH �' ` REQUIRED BY A RE
OR BY THE NORTH
D TO ALLOW SLOPES SHALL BE
THE \ ^ `.\ CF£OSE EUGENE IUMMONbS $c --- _r-_ BEN ADRIAN JURGENS , THAN 10^ REQUIRE
UPON 0B 679, RI 9 k WENDY JURGENS STABIUTY OF SLOPE
PG
RO 0)OJ30p]A ! DB ]022, 323 ' '_
ZE THE �\JMES T TOByS / I. Y PID 0)0332]9 ]. A GRADING PLAN M
DB 4253 PG 16F ONE ACRE THAT WA
PIO 0)033009 /
dT EROSION �� ! I 8. TEMPORARY
RIGHT OF WAYY MUS MUS
ACCESS \ ° � i� ' ROBERT L .GRIFFINPG4 HEIRS �,` 9. THERE SHALL BE N
NSTALL THE P - - � � ��" �� % - PC 5. PC q � 206 PRE -CONSTRUCTION
WIWE J. TOBIAS SR i • / M 203, PG 750
'ROTECTION \\� ' D PID 0]0PC ]]010 + \�\ `- /�0/i,� " / i PID 0]033003 1, 10. THIS SITE IS TO BE
THE NCG010000 GI
CROSSING \ ``-V'Ll�^ M Tm1ES0'u% L ♦ 205 ,,, 11. NO OPEN BURNING
OB 362 PG ,9, - o
ESSARY TO ' WILLAM TIK)T1ER CO. , RD 07913TNjY, 12. THE PERSON IN CF
M 253, PG 451 : -
PID 07p54p0]i
3B -K, AND " 1 V tt5 f _ Cp[] �,
EACH THE SPHASE TO EMENT N
1 �YkYF.S1ER SAM BYERS H - -.JLS-� 204 �, 73. ALL TREES AND BR
D BAFFLES, TESTER R Beu95tE 1 ( �Ek ,�
ECK DAMS, SANDRA B SELASSIE , _ DB 3]9 PG 6J) P� T -- BE CHIPPED ON -SI
INSTALL ' HAI LE SELASSIE I - RD 0]033006 % p•45Z ' _ '
`�PJQ�'� / 14. ANY OFF-SITE BOR
DB 890 PC 158 v033WyC I'. /
CHECK m 0)03300 Ct__ "'� 'EUIOM TOBIAS \ /// COME FROM A SITE
ED EASE' OB 270, PG 700 REGULATED UNDER
PID 0703JOO8Al BY THE DIVISION 01
DEMOUTION ACTIVITI
BBING MAY KrnN
` AI KOIAY'.2.1'..
DISPOSED OF AT A
/ = " MANAGEMENT OR PI
..5371, Po )9G � - , { DIVISION OF WATER
3 ONCE 38-F - PID D)D3wo7e. EK0.stinucl ¢p�Yp 1 ♦Y _ % If. 2a, ,;�
' D8 3856
a �
COVNIRY WOODS 11 PHASE 2
_ _
Low OVER 1 �r'�� �j c. -� - �� AA PC C. PG 310
aND�N STEVENOR
S MILL ROAD SB -E _ " �♦ ��
:D WITH BB les. 8-�
(e0' PUBLIC R/W) 1 - `-'rrl'� = - r \ i , '�- ♦♦ - 19e 1�
;TEM AND - -
I _ _ 5•_'
� ♦ •( � 11 � "" ♦1. 197
♦ JA
RIOR TO
TURES. ♦ --� ` a a' �. - ✓;: %j4 _ ______-_�
]UAL OF UNION COUNTY
DB 5456. PG +6D 28 1 l - 198
.CCORDANCE PID 07O5a00] - � Y -
D DESIGN 1 I - 23 Q
i I
-
-
JD 'I Q ��
r
1. FNRRELD PLANTATION Se—i 94
I
+� EXISTING EXISTING Pc M, PD 2U \ 93
ENT To THE FAIRFIELD DRIVE APRIL LANE J
-
r
STALLINGS (50' PUBLIC R/W) < - - - �01---------�
NS. Y ' 192 A
FNRREW PLANTATION SECTION 1 t
PC 6. PG 142 EXISTING
I 2J
z W
BE BROOKGREEN TERRACE 1;\ �� �'•,I —
(50' PUBLIC R/W)® Z�I SB -B ' + ; Pz
z,
i Ewl
Wx
__I F
zo
.- 69 d
x--------- 41
L________-i�
1 !
i
FNPC A. PLANTATDN 1J 1 1�\. a` /� / `~d •�
EXISTING LEGEND Pc A Pc n9A J
PC M. PG 254 ��-
I`j 15 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE •- I r ------
t� WATER VALVE Y j� te6
J A
WATER METERto ________�
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
F� ELECTRIC BO%/TRANSFORMER '
, ti
j
CURB INLET
B iN
CM STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE '+ A ---------�+
7:41 FLARED END SECTION ERIC W. BOWMAN S�
SEE SHEET EC -19 FOR THE SEDIMEN DB 2015. PC 021 ©,
RD 07 160
-•-•- STORM DRAIN BASIN DESIGN TABLES EXISTING O e2
-- - - - ---- OVERHEAD UTILITY UNE FIELDSTONE LANE D; . ` ��--- —. _ ___4
--•-•-•----•--•- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC GROUND STABILIZATION (60' PUBLIC R/II) FNRFlEID PLANTATION SECTION 2 ' `; I ,81
PC ). PG 0 % 33
-- - -- •-•- UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS UNE SITE AREA STABIUWON STABIUZATON TIME -
----^- WATER UNE DESCRIPTION TIME FRAME FRAME DECEPTIONS - -
PERIMETER DIKES, ' O
- •-•- -•- SANITARY SEWER UNE SWALES, D—ES 7 DAYS NONE
AND SLOPES Oj -- -__-J
____._.. _._._-- FENCE UNE HIGH QUALITY WATER
PROPERTY UNE (HOW) ZONES ]GAYS NONE Ila2
41
IF SLOPES IRE 10' FNRBELD PLANTATION
----------- ADJACENT PROPERTY UNE
SLOPES STEEPER OR LESS IN LENGTH RECREATION MFA
T DAYS MD ME NOT STEEPER PC ), PG 18
--------- RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE THAN 3:1 ,• - COUNTRY WOODS 11 PHASE 11

Energy, Mineral
and Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
WILLIAM E. (TOBY) VINSON, JR.
Interim Director
March 21, 2018
LETTER OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS
AND PERFORMANCE RESERVATIONS
TAC Southstone, LLC
Attention: Todd Terwilliger, Authorized Signatory
2100 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 350
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
RE: Project Name: Southstone
Acres Approved: 68
Project ID: UNION -2018-036
County: Union, City: Stallings
Address: Stevens Mill Road
River Basin: Yadkin — Pee Dee
Stream Classification: Other
Submitted By: TAC Southstone, LLC
Date Received by LQS: March 8, 2018
Plan Type: Revised
Dear Mr. Terwilliger:
This office has reviewed the subject erosion and sedimentation control plan and hereby issues
this Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations. A list of the
modifications and reservations is attached. This plan approval shall expire three (3) years
following the date of approval, if no land -disturbing activity has been undertaken, as is required
by Title 15A NCAC 4B .0129. Should the plan not perform adequately, a revised plan will be
required (G.S. 113A -54.1)(b).
Please be aware that your project will be covered by the enclosed NPDES Construction
Stormwater General Permit NCGO10000. Please become familiar with all the requirements and
conditions of this permit in order to achieve compliance.
Please be advised that Title 15A NCAC 4B .0118(a) requires that a copy of the approved erosion
control plan be on file at the job site. Also, you should consider this letter to give the Notice
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Mooresville Regional Office 16l0 East Center Ave Ste 301 I btooresville, NC 281 l5
704 663 1699 T

Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations
TAC Southstone, LLC
March 21, 2018
Page 2 of 3
required by G.S. 113A -61.1(a) of our right of periodic inspection to insure compliance with the
approved plan.
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Program is performance -oriented, requiring
protection of existing natural resources and adjoining properties. If, following the
commencement of this project, it is determined that the erosion and sedimentation control plan is
inadequate to meet the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North
Carolina General Statute 113A-51 thru 66), this office may require revisions to the plan and
implementation of the revisions to insure compliance with the Act.
Acceptance and approval of this plan is conditioned upon your compliance with Federal and
State water quality laws, regulations, and rules. In addition, local city or county ordinances or
rules may also apply to this land -disturbing activity. This approval does not supersede any other
permit or approval.
Please note that this approval is based in part on the accuracy of the information provided in the
Financial Responsibility Form, which you have provided. You are requested to file an amended
form if there is any change in the information included on the form. In addition, it would be
helpful if you notify this office of the proposed starting date for this project. Please notify us if
you plan to have a preconstruction conference.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tamers Eplin E, CPESC
Assistant Re ional Engineer
Land Quality Section
THE
Enclosures: Certificate of Plan Approval
Modifications and Performance Reservations
NPDES Permit
c: Rob Reddick, Jr., PE I McAdams 1343 6 Toringdon Way, Suite 110 1 Charlotte, NC 28277
Inspection Department

Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations
TAC Southstone, LLC
March 21, 2018
Page 3 of 3
MODIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE RESERVATIONS
Project Name: Southstone
Project ID: UNION -2018-036
County: Union
Modifications pursuant to applicable North Carolina General Statutes and/or Reeulations:
1. The installation of the creek crossings should take place early in the construction sequence to
minimize overall impact to the stream. Care should be taken to minimize impact and stream
flow characteristics. Any proposed installation of rip -rap within the creek bed should be
discussed and approved by the Water Quality Regional Operations Section [15A NCAC 4B
.0 112, 15A NCAC 413 .0115]
2. Temporary slope drains should be provided where temporary diversions discharge into sediment
basins or traps with a slope height greater than seven feet. [G.S. 113A-57(3)]
3. Be advised that in order to issue the new NPDES permit that went into effect July 27, 2016,
ground stabilization must occur within 7 days on perimeter areas and slopes greater than 3:1,
and ground stabilization must occur within 14 days on other areas. For more information,
please visit
°''0`[inzral°.U_Oand",- 0[,and"'o20ResoUrees,'i4orinwater IN
}ti il4s.�r.�,o� nctictl,'l.n�r'.a
These stabilization timeframes will supersede any less stringent requirements on your ESC
plans and apply to any period of inactivity. [G. S. 143-215.1, General Permit —NCG 010000]
Performance Reservations:
1, Be advised that 401/404 permits/certifications may provide authorization to work in the areas
subject to these permits/certifications, but they do not authorize impact beyond the limits of
the permits/certifications. Additional measures may be required to limit impact to the creek.
The applicant is responsible for the control of sediment on-site. If the approved erosion and
sedimentation control measures prove insufficient, the applicant must take those additional
steps necessary to stop sediment from leaving this site. [15A NCAC 4B .0115]
2. This project is located in the Goose Creek Watershed. All specific and general conditions of the
buffer authorization issued by the Water Quality Regional Operations Section must be followed.
[15A NCAC 2B .0600 -.0609]

Threatened & Endangered Species
Report
a
CD
LU
z

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Southstone Properties Site: UT Goose Creek
Union County, North Carolina
UT Goose Creek within project area
Prepared For:
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
Prepared by:
Aw
lt
Ntb�33N1`J�`
Three Oaks Engineering
September 1, 2017

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Target Federally Protected Species Description (Carolina Heelsplitter) ............................. 1
2.1. Species Characteristics..................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements............................................................................ 3
2.3. Threats to Species............................................................................................................. 4
2.4. Designated Critical Habitat.............................................................................................. 5
2.5. Populations not Designated Critical Habitat.................................................................... 9
3.0 Mussel Survey Efforts.......................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Stream Conditions at Time of Surveys: UT Goose Creek ............................................... 9
3.2. Mussel Survey Methodology......................................................................................... 10
3.3. Mussel Survey Results................................................................................................... 10
4.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION......................................................................................... 10
5.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................. 11
Appendix A: Figures

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The project involves a proposed Southstone Properties residential development in northwestern
Union County near the town of Mint Hill. Two streams (RPWA and RPWC) occur within the
property boundary and are expected to be impacted by the proposed action. RPWA is a tributary
to RPWC and is considered an intermittent stream. RPWC is considered perennial and flows
into Goose Creek approximately 850 meters (2,788 feet) downstream of its exit of the study area;
RPWC runs just outside and parallel to the study area boundary for the majority of those 850
meters (Figure 1).
The Federally Endangered Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is listed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Union County and is known to occur in Goose Creek, and a
portion of the creek is designated Critical Habitat for the species. The UT flows into Goose
Creek approximately 8.0 river miles (RM) upstream of designated Critical Habitat for the
Carolina Heelsplitter (Figure 2). In addition to the Carolina Heelsplitter, there are several other
rare freshwater mussel species known to occur in Union County. These include the Atlantic
Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Savannah Liliput (Toxolasma pullus), Carolina Creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana), Eastern Creekshell (V. delumbis), Creeper (Strophitus undulatus), and Notched
Rainbow (V. constricta). The Atlantic Pigtoe, Savannah Liliput and Carolina Creekshell are
considered Endangered in North Carolina, the Creeper is considered Threatened and the Notched
Rainbow has a Special Concern status and the Eastern Creekshell is considered Significantly
Rare.
To evaluate potential impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter and other freshwater mussel species,
mussel surveys targeting the Carolina Heelsplitter were conducted in the UT to Goose Creek
from the confluence with Goose Creek to a point approximately 100 meters (328 feet) upstream
of the project boundary (Figure 1). Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group contracted Three
Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) to conduct these surveys.
2.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION (CAROLINA
HEELSPLITTER)
2.1. Species Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter, originally described as Unio decoratus
by (Lea 1852), synonymized with Lasmigona subviridis (Conrad
1835-1840, Johnson 1970), and later separated as a distinct
species (Clarke 1985), is a federally Endangered freshwater
mussel, historically known from several locations within the
Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the
Pee Dee, Savannah, and possibly the Saluda River systems in
South Carolina.
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 1

The Carolina Heelsplitter can reach a length of 118 mm, with a height of 68 mm and a width of 39
mm. Based on some specimens collected by Keferl and Shelley (1988) from three different
streams and rivers, the mean length is 78 mm, the mean height is 43 mm and the mean width is 27
mm. The shell is an ovate trapezoid. The dorsal margin is straight and may end with a slight wing.
The umbo is flattened. The beaks are depressed and project a little above the hinge line. The
unsculptured remainder of the shell can have a yellowish, greenish, or brownish periostracum. The
Carolina Heelsplitter can have greenish or blackish rays. The lateral teeth may or may not be well
developed; in most cases they are thin. The pseudo -cardinal teeth are lamellar and parallel to the
dorsal margin, and there is a slight interdentum. The nacre varies from an iridescent white to a
mottled pale orange. The shell's nacre is often pearly white to bluish white, grading to orange in
the area of the umbo (Keferl 1991). The hinge teeth are well developed and heavy and the beak
sculpture is double looped (Keferl and Shelly 1988). Morphologically, the shell of the Carolina
Heelsplitter is very similar to the shell of the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis, Clarke 1985),
with the exception of a much larger size and thickness in the Carolina Heelsplitter (Keferl and
Shelly 1988).
Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), the Carolina Heelsplitter had not been
collected in the 201h century and was known only from shell characteristics. Because of its rarity,
very little information of this species' biology, life history, and habitat requirements was known
until very recently. Feeding strategy and reproductive cycle of the Carolina Heelsplitter have not
been fully documented, but are likely similar to other native freshwater mussels (USFWS 1996).
The feeding processes of freshwater mussels are specialized for the removal (filtering) of
suspended microscopic food particles from the water column (Pennak 1989). Documented food
sources for freshwater mussels include detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton
(USFWS 1996).
Freshwater mussels have complex reproductive cycles, which include a larval stage (glochidium)
that is an obligatory parasite on a fish. The glochidia develop into juvenile mussels and detach
from the "fish host" and sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop, provided
suitable substrate and water conditions are available (USFWS 1996). For more details regarding
general freshwater mussel reproductive biology, McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989)
should be consulted.
At the time of listing, nothing was known about the host species(s) for the Carolina Heelsplitter
(USFWS 1996, Bogan 2002). Starnes and Hogue (2005) identified the most likely fish host
candidates (15 species) based on fish community surveys in occupied streams throughout the
range of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Captive propagation efforts for this species had not been
attempted; however, due to the critical level of imperilment of the North Carolina populations,
acting on recommendations from the NC Scientific Council on Mollusks, the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) funded a life history/captive propagation study, which
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 2

allowed for salvage of individuals from the Goose/Duck and Sixmile Creek populations to be
used in the study. A total of nine minnow species (Cyprinidae) were identified as suitable, and
two sunfish species (Lepomis spp.) were identified as marginally suitable host species (Eads and
Levine 2008, Eads et al. 2010). All of these species may occur in habitat types known to be
occupied by the Carolina Heelsplitter; however, "it is always possible that it may use a
combination of fish host species and some may not be native to all streams inhabited by this
mussel" (Starnes and Hogue 2005). Another member of the genus Lasmigona, the Green Floater
(L. subviridis), perhaps a close relative to the Carolina Heelsplitter, has been documented to be
capable of in situ early development with glochidia developing within the marsupium of the
female (Barfield and Watters 1998), thus it is possible that the Carolina Heelsplitter may also be
able to propagate by direct transformation.
ZZ Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Currently, the Carolina Heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until recently, it
was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river (USFWS 1996); however,
recent discoveries have increased the number of known populations to eleven:
Pee Dee River Basin:
1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek - Mecklenburg/Union counties, NC
2. Flat Creek/Lynches River - Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw counties, SC
Catawba River Basin:
3. Sixmile Creek (Twelvemile Creek Subbasin) - Lancaster County, SC
4. Waxhaw Creek - Union County, NC and Lancaster County, SC
5. Cane Creek/Gills Creek - Lancaster County, SC
6. Fishing Creek Subbasin - Chester County, SC
7. Rocky Creek Subbasin (Bull Run Creek/UT Bull Run CreekBeaverdam Creek/Hooper
Branch - Chester County, SC
Saluda River Basin:
8. Redbank Creek - Saluda County, SC
9. Halfway Swamp Creek- Greenwood/Saluda County, SC
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 3

Savannah River Basin:
10. Little Stevens Creek/Mountain Creek/Sleepy Creek /Turkey Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin)
- Edgefeld/McCormick counties, SC.
11. Cuffytown Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin) - Greenwood/McCormick counties, SC
All of these populations occur in stream reaches within the Piedmont Physiographic Province,
particularly within two northeast trending lithostratigraphic belts of the Carolina Terrane, the
Carolina Slate Belt and the Charlotte Belt. The Carolina Slate Belt is a band of greenschist
facies metavolcanic rock formations positioned in the central and lower Piedmont province
extending from south-central Virginia to extreme eastern Georgia (Howell 2005, Butler and
Secor 1991). The Charlotte Belt extends from north central North Carolina to eastern Georgia
and is comprised of amphibolite facies metavolcanic and metaplutonic rock (Howell 2005,
Butler and Secor 1991). These hard formations strongly dictate the channel morphology and
character of stream substrates where they intersect. Starnes and Hogue (2005) describe such
reaches as "generally characterized by dark, often tilted, bedrock stream bottom with associated
large and small rock rubble interspersed with pockets of sand, silt, and gravel." Habitat for this
species has been reported from small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds. The ponds are
believed to be millponds on some of the smaller streams within the species' historic range
(Keferl 1991). Keferl and Shelly (1988) and Keferl (1991) reported that most individuals have
been found along well -shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates;
however, numerous individuals in several of the populations have been found in cobble and
gravel dominated substrate in stream reaches intersecting the hard rock formations described
above (personal observations). The stability of stream banks appears to be very important to this
species (Keferl 1991).
2.3. Threats to Species
The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of each of the surviving populations
make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity
(USFWS 1996). The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and
non -point discharge, and stream modification (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have
contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range (USFWS 1996).
Siltation resulting from improper sedimentation control of various land usage practices,
including agriculture, forestry, and development activities, has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to the degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been
documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water
quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels
(Ellis 1936, Markings and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been
shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 4

Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery of
mussel populations might not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Dam construction transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes within aquatic community composition. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of
Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of
the river basins within the Carolina Heelsplitter's range have been impounded; this is believed to
be a major factor contributing to the species decline (USFWS 1996).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973); including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS 1996). Concern has been raised over
competitive interactions for space, food, and oxygen with this species and native mussels,
possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlack 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel is
not known from any waterbodies supporting the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS 1996).
2.4. Designated Critical Habitat
In accordance of Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists of. The specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in which are
found those physical or biological features (constituent elements) that are:
a. essential to the conservation of the species, and
b. which may require special management considerations or protection
Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary
that such areas are "essential for the conservation of the species."
When designating Critical Habitat, the USFWS identifies physical and biological features
(primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protection. The primary constituent elements
essential for the conservation of the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS 2002) include:
1. Permanent flowing, cool, clean water
2. Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 5

3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel
4. Stable substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment
5. Moderate stream gradient
6. Periodic natural flooding
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them
Critical habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter was designated in 2002 (USFWS 2002). The
designated area totals approximately 92 miles (148 kilometers) of nine creeks and one river in
North and South Carolina. These areas are considered essential to the conservation and recovery
of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Six areas (Units) have been designated as critical habitat, as shown
on Figure 2, and a description of each follows.
Unit 1: Goose Creek and Duck Creek (Pee Dee River System), Union County, NC
Unit 1 encompasses approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 km) of the main stem of Goose Creek, Union
County, NC, from the N.C. Highway 218 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Rocky
River, and approximately 6.4 mi (10.3 km) of the main stem of Duck Creek, Union County, NC,
from the Mecklenburg/Union County line downstream to its confluence with Goose Creek. The
Carolina Heelsplitter was first discovered in Goose Creek in 1987 (Keferl 1991) and in Duck
Creek in 2000 (NCWRC Database). Between 1993 and 1999, a total of 15 live individuals had
been recorded in Goose Creek. NCWRC surveys in early 2002, found 16 live individuals in
Duck Creek (NCWRC Database); however, following extreme drought conditions in late 2002,
where much of the streambed in both creeks was dry, status surveys in Duck Creek yielded only
four live and more than 40 fresh -dead.
One fresh -dead shell was also found in Goose Creek during the 2002 drought surveys just below
US 601. Pools and wet streambeds were much more common in lower Goose Creek, apparently
providing refuge from desiccation during the drought. Between 2004 and 2005, four live
individuals were found at two locations within Goose Creek, and 12 live individuals were found
at six locations within Duck Creek. Prolonged severe drought conditions persisted in the Goose
Creek watershed in 2006 through 2007. A total of nine individuals have been found in Duck
Creek between 2006 and 2009. Three of the individuals were found on more than one occasion.
Four of these individuals were taken into captivity, as much of the stream channel was dry when
they were found. A survey conducted in 2011 of the critical habitat portion of Goose Creek,
from the Rocky River confluence to the NC 218 crossing, located a total of 12 live individuals
and one fresh dead shell (Catena 2012).
All of the live individuals, the majority of which were estimated to be <5 years of age based on
shell condition and growth rests, were taken into captivity for a joint propagation effort between
North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Some
of the propagated individuals have been released back into Goose and Duck Creeks, and are
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 6

being monitored by the NCWRC. Status surveys and monitoring of released propagated
individuals conducted by NCWRC and USFWS in 2015 found three live resident individuals,
and several propagated individuals (T. R. Russ, NCWRC personal communication). Repeated
survey efforts in Duck Creek in 2011 and 2012 and 2015 have not located any live individuals
post drought; however, released propagated individuals have been alive during monitoring
surveys (T. R. Russ, NCWRC personal communication).
Unit 2: Waxhaw Creek (Catawba River System), Union County, NC
Unit 2 encompasses approximately 12.2 mi (19.6 km) of the main stem of Waxhaw Creek, Union
County, NC, from the N.C. Highway 200 Bridge, downstream to the North Carolina/South
Carolina state line. Very few Carolina Heelsplitter individuals have been found in Waxhaw
Creek since they were first discovered in 1987. Keferl (199 1) found one live individual in 1987
and two in 1990. Subsequent surveys failed to find any individuals until one weathered shell
was found in 1996, followed by one live individual in 1998, one weathered shell in 2005, and
three live individuals at three separate sites in 2006 (NCWRC Database). Surveys of Waxhaw
Creek in South Carolina, conducted in 2004, documented only two live individuals at a single
site — one of only a couple of sites in the stream below the North Carolina/South Carolina state
line that appeared to provide suitable substrate for the Heelsplitter (USFWS 2007). Fourteen live
individuals were observed from 2015-2016 in the SC portion of this stream during a Carolina
Heelsplitter population assessment study (Tim Savidge, personal observations).
Unit 3: Gills Creek (Catawba River System), Lancaster County, SC
Unit 3 encompasses approximately 6.0 mi (9.6 km) of the main stem of Gills Creek, Lancaster
County, SC, from the County Route S-29-875, downstream to the SC Route 51 Bridge, east of
the City of Lancaster. One 88.0 mm fresh shell and one 67.0 mm live individual discovered in
1998, represent this population (Alderman 1998). One weathered shell was observed in this unit
in 2015 during a Carolina Heelsplitter population assessment study (Tim Savidge, personal
observations).
In 2006, Catena discovered the species (two live and one shell) at three sites in Cane Creek, a
tributary to Gills Creek (USFWS 2007). While Cane Creek is not within the boundaries of Unit
3, Gills Creek and Cane Creek are considered a single population from a management
perspective, as there are no physical barriers that would isolate the two areas. The discovery of
the Carolina Heelsplitter in Cane Creek demonstrates that this population has been reduced to
small pockets of habitat in the watershed.
Unit 4: Flat Creek (Pee Dee River System), Lancaster County, SC, and the Lynches River (Pee
Dee River System), Lancaster, Chesterfield, and Kershaw Counties, SC
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 7

Unit 4 encompasses approximately 11.4 mi (18.4 km) of the main stem of Flat Creek, Lancaster
County, SC, from the SC Route 204 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Lynches
River, and approximately 14.6 mi (23.6 km) of the main stem of the Lynches River, Lancaster
and Chesterfield Counties, SC, from the confluence of Belk Branch, Lancaster County, northeast
(upstream) of the U.S. Highway 601 Bridge, downstream to the SC Highway 903 Bridge in
Kershaw County, SC. Within this unit, the Lynches River local population is represented most
recently (2005 to 2007) by 14 live and two fresh dead shells (54-87mm) found above SC 265
Chesterfield/Lancaster Co. SC in 2007 (USFWS 2007, USFWS 2012). Between 1994 and 1997,
the Flat Creek local population was represented by 28 live individuals ranging in length from
54.15 to 94.1 mm and by four shells ranging in length from 41.0 to 86.1 mm (Alderman 1998).
In 2007, Alderman conducted surveys of two reaches of Flat Creek, one in upper Flat Creek and
one in middle -lower Flat Creek, and documented 16 live Carolina Heelsplitter individuals,
including several age classes, some likely less than five years of age based on shell
measurements (USFWS 2007). In 2010, Alderman found 42 live and one weathered shell in Flat
Creek, with a large number of size classes represented (Alderman 2010, pers. comm.).
Multiple survey efforts have been conducted in 2014-2016 in this unit and numerous individuals
were found in both Flat Creek and the Lynches River (Tim Savidge, Tom Dickinson, John
Fridell, personal communication).
Unit 5: Mountain and Beaverdam Creeks (Savannah River System), Edgefield County, SC, and
Turkey Creek (Savannah River System), Edgefield and McCormick Counties, SC
Unit 5 encompasses approximately 7.0 mi (11.2 km) of the main stem of Mountain Creek,
Edgefield County, SC, from the SC Route 36 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with Turkey
Creek; approximately 6.7 mi (10.8 km) of Beaverdam Creek, Edgefield County, from the SC
Route 51 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with Turkey Creek; and approximately 11.4 mi
(18.4 km) of Turkey Creek, from the SC Route 36 Bridge, Edgefield County, downstream to the
SC Route 68 Bridge, Edgefield and McCormick Counties, SC.
The Mountain Creek local population is represented by 15 live individuals ranging in length
from 38.7 to 84.9 mm and by 15 shells ranging in length from 53.0 to 98.0 mm (Alderman 1998,
2002). During 2002, two additional local populations of Carolina Heelsplitter were discovered
within the Turkey Creek Subbasin, one in Little Stevens Creek represented by a shell fragment,
and one in Sleepy Creek represented by seven live individuals ranging in length from 51.1 to
73.0 mm and by three shells ranging in length from 61.4 to 71.0 mm (Alderman 2002). Seven
live and one moribund individuals were documented in Little Stevens Creek in 2007 (USFWS
2007).
A single shell of the Carolina Heelsplitter was found in Beaverdam Creek (Alderman 1995) and
additional surveys of the stream failed to locate any individuals, and it was suggested that this
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 8

portion of the population may have extirpated or exist only in very low numbers (USFWS 2007).
However, in 2010 one live and one shell were found (USFWS 2012). Additionally, two live
individuals and three fresh shells were found in 2015 (Tim Savidge, personal communication).
The mainstem of Turkey Creek local population is represented by a few shells discovered in
1995, and by one live individual discovered in 1997 (McDougal 1997). Ten 10 individuals were
found at eight locations in 2012-2013 (Catena 2013), one individual was found just above the SC
68 bridge in December 2015, and one individual was found in 2016, along with two live
individuals found in Turkey Creek, just upstream of the Critical Habitat Unit (Tim Savidge,
personal communication). Additionally, in 2016, four live individuals were found in Rocky
Creek, a tributary to Turkey Creek, which is not within the Critical Habitat Unit (Tim Savidge,
personal communication).
Unit 6: Cuffytown Creek (Savannah River System), Greenwood and McCormick Counties, SC
Unit 6 encompasses approximately 12.9 mi (20.8 km) of the main stem of Cuffytown Creek,
from the confluence of Horsepen Creek, northeast (upstream) of the SC Route 62 Bridge in
Greenwood County, SC, downstream to the U.S. Highway 378 Bridge in McCormick County.
Within this unit, the population is represented by five live individuals (three discovered in 1998
and two discovered in 2001) with lengths ranging from 53.5 to 71.5 mm and by one shell
discovered in 1998 with a length of 63.0 mm (Alderman 1998, 2002).
2.5. Populations not Designated Critical Habitat
Five of the eleven Carolina Heelsplitter populations listed above: Sixmile Creek, Fishing Creek,
Rocky Creek, Redbank Creek, and Halfway Swamp Creek, were discovered after Critical
Habitat was designated. Like most of the other Carolina Heelsplitter populations, these
populations are also limited in size and distribution.
3.0 MUSSEL SURVEY EFFORTS
The project survey reach was surveyed by Three Oaks personnel Tim Savidge (Federal Permit #
TE 075920-0) and Nathan Howell on August 29, 2017.
3.1. Stream Conditions at Time of Surveys: UT Goose Creek (RPWC)
The subject UT was surveyed from its confluence with Goose Creek to a point approximately
100m (3 28 feet) upstream of the study area boundary (Figure 1). With the exception of the upper
400 feet of the survey reach, which is bordered by forest, the majority of the UT is bordered by
suburban residences, with very narrow vegetated buffers consisting of a few native tree species
and often dense thickets of Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinese). The channel characteristics varied
widely within the survey reach. Near the confluence with Goose Creek, the channel was narrow
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 9

ranging from 5-6 feet wide and very incised with highly eroded banks 7-9 feet high. The channel
gradually became less incised and wider in the middle of the survey reach, ranging from 6-14
feet wide with eroded banks 5-7 feet high that have been stabilized with rip/rap in some areas.
The substrate consisted of bedrock, overlain with cobble, gravel, and coarse sand. In the upper
400 feet of the reach, the channel is more meandering and ranges from 8-12 feet wide with fairly
stable banks less than 3 feet high. The substrate in this section consists of gravel and sand, with
occasional cobble.
3.2. Mussel Survey Methodology
Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods
were employed, particularly in streambanks under submerged rootmats. If present, all freshwater
mussels were to be recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed survey efforts would provide
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each mussel species. If present, relative abundance for
freshwater snails and clams were to be estimated using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
3.3. Mussel Survey Results
Surveys were conducted in the defined 1,192 in (3,910 feet) survey reach for a total of 3.0 person
hours during which no evidence of mussels, or any aquatic mollusk species were found.
4.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
The targeted Carolina Heelsplitter, or any freshwater mussel species was not found in the UT to
Goose Creek during this survey effort and based on the survey results and habitat conditions, it is
unlikely to occur within the immediate impact area of the UT.
Potential direct impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter from project construction are low, as the
species is unlikely to occur within the project footprint, as the site is well over 8 RM upstream
from Critical Habitat for this species, which is currently considered to be occupied. Strict
adherence to erosion/sedimentation control measures during project construction will
minimize/eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to occur to this species downstream of the
project area, which should be evaluated and disclosed during the Section 7 Consultation process
with the USFWS.
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 10

5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Alderman, J.M. (1997). Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages 98-
107 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. 1997.
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiatives for the future.
Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Illinois. 293 pp.
Alderman, J.M. 1998. Survey for the endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) in
South Carolina., A Final Report prepared for the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources: 67.
Alderman, J.M. 2002. Lasmigona decorata Monitoring and Habitat Evaluation, final report. F. S.
USDA, Francis Marion and Sumpter National Forests: 29.
Alderman, J.M. 2010. President: Alderman Environmental Services Inc. Pittsboro, NC. Personal
communication regarding 2010 mussel surveys in Flat Creek. Email: Mar. 23, 2010.
Barfield, M.L. and G.T. Watters. 1998. Non -parasitic life cycle in the green floater, Lasmigona
subviridis (Conrad, 1835). Triannual Unionid Report 16:22.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC, 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Butler, R.J. and D.T. Secor. 1991. The Central Piedmont, pp. 59-78, in: J.W. Horton and V.A.
Zullo, eds., The Geology of the Carolinas. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Catena 2012. Bridge No. 6 on SR 1600 Duck Creek Biological Assessment submitted to
NCDOT.
Catena. 2013. Turkey Creek Sumter National Forest Long Case District — Freshwater Mussel
Surveys: Final Report. The Catena Group. July 2013.
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part Il: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399: 75.
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 11

Conrad, T.A. 1835-1840. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck,
(freshwater bivalve shells) or North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone from
nature. 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. Dobson.
Eads, C.B., R. Nichols, C.J. Woods, and J.F. Levine. 2008. Captive spawning and host
determination of the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Ellipsaria, 10(2):7-8.
Eads, C.B., R.B. Bringolf, R.D. Greiner, A.E. Bogan, and J.F. Levine. 2010. Fish Hosts of the
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a federally endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae). American Malacological Bulletin 28(2):151-158.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents on
Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Howell, S.M. 2005. Geologic Mapping and Interpretation of Carolina Slate Belt Rocks in the
Woodlawn and Aonia Quadrangles, GA. Department of Geology and Geography,
Georgia Southern University. Bachelor of Science in Geography: 42.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). A
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta robusta),
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47.
Lea, I. 1852. Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 12

Mcdougal, L.A. 1997. Southern region mussel survey data sheet for a survey of Turkey
Creek near CR 68 on October 7, 1997., United States Forest Service (USFS).
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American
freshwater invertebrates. 2°dedition. Academic Press.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K. S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 189 pp.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). Unpublished Aquatics Database.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh -water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 2014. South Carolina's State
Wildlife Action Plan. Final October 14, 2014.
Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue. 2005. Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species
of the southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft
Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule, Dept of
the Interior. Federal Register 67(127):44501-44522.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 34 pp
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 13

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Asheville, NC
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 14

APPENDIX A:
Figures
Southstone Properties Site Mussel Survey Report September 2017
Job# 17-319 Page 15

��C,\NEER/Ne Prepared For
;Vj Wetlands
o r,+ &
T Environmental
JW . �� Planning Group
NIR33N\9�
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Southstone Properties Site:
UT Goose Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Date September 2017
Scale 0 200 400 Feet
W
Job No 17-319
Drawn By.
Checked By:
KMS
TS
Figure

LINCOLN
i +
RUTHERFORD
j CLEVELAND
GASTON
i )
I 1
;\--- -------------- jApproximate Project
_) CHEROKEE !m-�
+ l
), YORK
SPARTANBURG
LAURENS
AJBEVILLE
I-
ABBEVILLE
GREENWOOD
Unit 6
UNION
I.I WiTi-1:10;Q
SALUDA
�1
+
\
Unit 5 �`
EDGEFIELD
CHESTER
FAIRFIELD
Area
CABARRUS
Unit 1
G ST'T
\ Unit2 UNION
i
I i
p1Unit3
CHESTERFIELD
LANCASTER
Unit 4
DARLINGTON
KERSHAW -
l+
r`
LEE
SUMTER
r'f Critical Habitat Units
AIKEN �
CALH I County Boundary
MCCbRIMCK �' ORANGEBURG� L '_ North Carolina
,N
\ i South Carolina
��6\NEER/Ne Prepared For
c � Wetlands
&
Environmental
'A� Planning Group
*433N\`��
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Southstone Properties Site:
UT Goose Creek
Carolina Heelsplitter
Critical Habitat Units
North and South Carolina
Dam September 2017
Scale: 0 5 10 Miles
Job No 17-319
Drawn By:
KMS
Checked By:
TS
Figure
-2

Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
For: Southstone
Union County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney
June 30, 2016
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
len. [e-mail]

Southstone - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The Southstone site is 74.76 acres located just east of Stevens Mill Road, and
just south of Lawyers Road in Union County, North Carolina. It can be found on
the Midland USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.1344 N,
longitude is 80.6217 W. The site is a mosaic of disturbed forest cover. The
topography is gently to moderately sloped with the elevation ranging from 610 to
660 ft. (Figure 1).
Figure 1:
3 C
Z�''...
1
t � `
� t `
9.g •...
ellF ,
LOCATION SCALE Strep
La t:35.13444N 1:24,000 - N
Long: 80.6217 9W ACRES USGS QUAD cw,
HUC:03040105 74.76 Midland, NC
FIGURE NO.
3
SOUTHSTONE
Union CO., NC
USGS MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXISTING CONDITIONS S7UDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFIC477ON
Drawn By:I Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE
1/27/15
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Southstone - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntVIist/union.htmI was referenced to
determine the occurrence of Threatened, Endangered and Protected species for
Union County North Carolina, the results of which are listed below (Table 1).
Maps and aerial photographs were assembled and the site was investigated
June 27, 2016.
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Union County
County: Union, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on June 27, 2016
Group Name Status Lead Office
Clams Carolina heelsplitter Endangered
Asheville
(Lasmigona
Ecological
decorata)
Services Field
Office
Flowering Schweinitz's Endangered
Asheville
Plants sunflower
Ecological
(Helianthus
Services Field
schweinitzii)
Office
Flowering Michaux's sumac Endangered Raleigh
Plants (Rhus michauxii) Ecological
Services Field
Office
Birds Bald Eagle Protected under the Great Lakes-
(Haliaeetus Bald and Golden Big Rivers
leucocephalus) Eagle Protection Act Region (Region
3)
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Southstone - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Two plant species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Union County:
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), listed as Federally
Endangered, is typically found in open habitats which historically have
been maintained by wildfires and grazing bison and elk herds. Now most
occurrences are limited to roadsides, woodland and field edges, and utility
rights-of-way (ROW).
• Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii), listed as Federally Endangered,
requires habitat of sandy forests and woodland edges. This species
requires periodic fire as a part of its ecology.
Two animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Union County:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large
bodies of open water such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers,
where there are suitable fish populations and tall trees for nesting and
roosting.
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally
Endangered, is restricted to cool, clean, well -oxygenated water. Stable,
silt- free stream beds are required for this species. Typically stable areas
occur where the stream banks are well -vegetated with trees and shrubs.
RESULTS:
The site is a mosaic of disturbed forest cover. There is evidence of past
timbering, including old stumps, logging roads and successional growth. There
are areas of overgrown scrub/shrub cover on small overhead power lines and
sanitary sewer line right-of-way, as well as areas covered in mixed turf grass and
typical weeds.
The disturbed mixed woods are composed of Short -leaf Pine (Pinus echinata),
Virginia Pine (P. virginiana), Loblolly Pine (P. taeda), Sweet Gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipifera), White Oak
(Quercus alba), Northern Red Oak (Q. rubra), Southern Red Oak (Q.falcata),
Black Oak (Q. velutina), Post Oak (Q. stellata), Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra),
and Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa),. Subcanopy species present are
Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), Red
Maple (Acerrubrum var. rubrum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Flowering
Dogwood (Cornus florida), Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Black Cherry (Prunus
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Southstone - Threatened /Endangered / Protected Species Evahtation
serotina), Redbud (Cercis canadensis), and Am6rican Holly (Ilex opaca). The
sparse shrub layer includes Blueberry (Vaccnium sp.), Russian Olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia), and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). Vines present are
Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Catbrier (Smilax spp.), Trumpet
Creeper (Campsis radicans), Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The
herb layer includes Christmas Fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Wintergreen
(Chimaphila maculata), and Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum).
Overgrown scrub/shrub areas associated with the small overhead power lines
and utility rights-of-way are dominated by small saplings of Sweetgum, Pines,
Red Cedar, and Blackberry (Rubus spp.) thickets.
The mowed roadside and sidewalk corridor along Stevens Mill Road is
dominated by Fescue turf grass (Festuca sp.), and common weedy and
transitional species including Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Plume Grass
(Erianthus contortus), Beggars Ticks (Desmodium sp.), Sericea Lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata), Ragwort (Packers sp.) Indian Hemp (Apocynum
cannabinum), Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and Dogfennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium).
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
• All potential habitats for Schweinitz's Sunflower and Michaux's Sumac
along the roadside corridor, power line and utility rights-of-way, and woods
edges were closely examined and neither of these species was present.
• There is no bald eagle habitat on site, and no eagles or eagle's nests were
observed.
Streams on site do not have the habitat characteristics required to support
populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter. No mussels were observed
during the survey nor would any be expected on-site; however, this site
drains to Goose Creek which harbors a population of Federally
Endangered Carolina Heelsplitters. This site may be subject to
regulations specific to the Goose Creek Watershed, or other local, state
and federal agencies.
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Southstone - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the site investigation and the review of available data, WEPG did not
identify any protected species occurring on the subject property. No further
investigation of the presence of protected species on this site is recommended at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
I/ I
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
June 30, 2016
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Southstone - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Curriculum Vitae for:
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist / Botanist
B.S. Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Ms. Gaffney is a classically trained botanist and natural resource biologist, and has
conducted field work and investigative studies covering thousands of cumulative acres in
both North and South Carolina since 1996, including:
• Cabarrus County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 1997-1998. Organized,
directed, and worked in field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County for the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
• Lincoln County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 2000-2001. Organized, directed,
and worked in field survey of natural areas in Lincoln County for the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
• Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys and Natural Communities
Evaluation for over 40,000 acres in North and South Carolina, 1996 - present.
• Located and identified at least six previously unreported populations of Federally
Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
• Located and identified four previously unreported populations of
Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
• Located a previously unknown population of Federally Endangered Schweinitz's
Sunflower at Redlair Farm in Gaston County, NC. This discovery led (in part) to
the purchase of the site by the State of North Carolina Plant Conservation
Program, now called Redlair Preserve. This population has become a Recovery
Site for the species.
• Participated in numerous Piedmont Prairie restoration projects in Mecklenburg,
Union, Cabarrus and Gaston Counties, North Carolina.
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.