20191349 Ver 1_SAW-2019-01946 Waiver Request_20191118

Strickland, Bev
From:
Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, November 18, 2019 8:29 AM
To:
Johnson, Alan; Bowers, Todd; Munzer, Olivia
Subject:
[External] SAW-2019-01946 Waiver Request
Attachments:
SAW-2019-01946 FILE.PDF
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good morning,
Please see attached PCN. The applicant has requested a waiver above the normal 300 linear foot threshold for NWP 29
& 39. In accordance General Condition 32, 1 am forwarding a copy of the PCN to you for review and comment.
Comments are requested from Federal or state agencies within 10 calendar days from the date the material is
transmitted. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]
1

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
October 3, 2019
Ms. Catherine Janiczak
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, Moorseville, 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 Street, Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Request and Pre -Construction
Notification for NWPs 29 & 39 for the Cannon Run site, Concord, Cabarrus County, NC.
Mses. Janiczak and Higgins, and Messrs. Johnson, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination request and Pre -Construction Notification
for Nationwide Permits # 29 & 39 for the approximate 128.5 -acre site known as the Cannon Run
site located northwest of the intersection of Harris Rd and Odell School Rd in Concord, NC. The
current project area is a proposed mixed use development and consists of fourteen streams and
fifteen wetlands. Additionally, there are two non jurisdictional ponds excavated in upland
landscape positions and one isolated, non jurisdictional wetland. The site has been field verified
by Alan Johnson (NCDEQ) on 6/14/18 and 10/9/18. A pre -application site meeting was
conducted on 10/31/18 during which the current site conditions for the commercial section of the
Charlotte Office: vvww.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] 1
[e-mail]

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
project were field -verified by Catherine Janiczak and Scott Jones (USACE). Please refer to the
Jurisdictional Determination section for updated information on onsite surface waters.
As shown on the attached exhibits, the proposed project will include permanent impacts to four
wetlands and three streams for fill associated with a road crossing, lot fill and grading in addition
to minor temporary impacts to one stream for the installation of a sanitary sewer to serve the
proposed residential development. Overall impacts to site surface waters associated with the
proposed development were limited through site selection location, design, location/orientation
of the proposed lots and access routes. Due to the location of the features in relation to existing
roads and municipal infrastructure, opportunities to completely avoid these features were limited.
The total permanent wetland impacts proposed include 0.069 ac of wetland (Wetlands A, PP,
CCC & DDD). The total permanent stream impacts proposed include 572 if of stream channel
(Streams AAA, BBB, and AJ-AJS-AJSS).
Efforts of impact minimization were implemented during the design to preserve the existing
channel hydrology and limit adverse effects to existing, onsite natural habitat. Large headwalls
will be used for the residential road crossing and sidewalks have been pulled in to the maximum
extent in order to keep the crossing as narrow as possible and avoid the need for additional rip
rap. Additional retaining walls and 2:1 slopes are used throughout the site where practicable to
avoid additional impacts to streams and wetlands. A catchment will direct runoff to the head of
stream AAA to maintain hydrology just below the grading impact. One temporary open cut for a
sewerline installation will be restored to pre-existing conditions per the attached stream
stabilization detail. The applicant has demonstrated substantial avoidance and minimization
efforts in which 91% of the 6,334 linear feet of stream channels and 93.4 % of the 1.05 ac of
wetlands onsite will be avoided on the project.
The applicant requests a waiver for 397 linear feet of impacts to streams AJ, AJS, and AJSS.
These features are a series of disconnected intermittent stream segments separated by non -
jurisdictional swales, as field -verified by the USACE (Catherine Janiczac and Scott Jones) on
10/31/18. These features bisect the portion of the site slated for commercial development and are
unavoidable due the constraints imposed by commercial construction requirements (i.e. flat
grades for commercial buildings, pedestrian/handicap requirements, heavy truck access routes,
etc.) The attached NCSAM indicates that these stream segments are of relatively low functional
quality characterized by relatively low hydrological connectivity with limited aquatic habitat
opportunity. Please see the enclosed assessment form for matrix scores and overall functional
ratings derived from the NCSAM. Additional forms and photographs of these features are
provided in the Waiver Request Study section of the permit application.
To compensate for the anticipated permanent impacts, the applicant is proposing payment to the
NCDMS at a 0.5: 1 ratio for 3971f of discontinuous intermittent stream segments, a 1:1 ratio for
50 linear feet of intermittent warm water stream and a 2:1 ratio for 125 linear feet of perennial
warm water stream. Please refer to the enclosed conditional acceptance letter from NCDMS.
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, PM 263
Asheville, NC 28805

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Also enclosed is a copy of our 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. Thank you for your consideration and please contact
me if you have any questions, [phone] or email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
r
Daniel Kuefler Len Rindner, PWS
Environmental Scientist Principal
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-0 Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PM 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone] 3
[e-mail]

Permit Application

y�oF wArE�Q�
0 vfllll::� ^Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29,39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
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.
X❑ Yes ❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X 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:
Cannon Run
2b.
County:
Cabarrus
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Concord
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Rocky River Crossing, LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Please see attached parcel map
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
4350 Main Street, Ste 201
3e.
City, state, zip:
Harrisburg, NC, 28975
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: Developer
4b.
Name:
Mark Swartz
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Charlotte Real Estate Development
4d.
Street address:
4350 Main Street, #201
4e.
City, state, zip:
Harrisburg, NC 28075
4f.
Telephone no.:
704-454-7807
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Daniel Kuefler
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 28227
5e.
Telephone no.:
336-554-2728
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 refer to attached parcel map.
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.4345 Longitude:-80.7302
1 c.
Property size:
128.5 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Rocky River
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
03040105 - Rocky
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 a mosaic of partially rough graded land and wooded slopes. There are numerous dirt roads and trails lacing the site and it is disturbed
throughout. There is roadside frontage along Hwy 73, Odell School Road and Harris Road. Two unnamed tributaries to Rocky River flow southwest
through the site. General land use in the vicinity is a mixture undeveloped land and residential/ commercial developments.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.05
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 6,334
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project consists of one road crossing, grading, fill & sewer installation for a residential development.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Excavation and grading of the site will use standard equipment - excavator, dump trucks, track hoe, etc.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments: See comment below
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): Nic Nelson
Agency/Consultant Company: WEPG
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination is requested as part of this PCN package. The site was field -verified by Alan Johnson (NCDEQ) on 10/9/19.
The northern portion of the site was field -verified by Catherine Janiczak & Scott Jones (USACE) on 10/31/18.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
A
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
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
0 Wetlands 0 Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.061
W2 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.005
W3 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.002
W4 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.0008
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.0688
2h. Comments:
Permanent impacts include Wetland A (0.061 ac), Wetland PP (0.005 ac), Wetland CCC (0.002 ac), & Wetland DDD (0.0008 ac). An additional 0.09 ac
of permanent impacts to non -Jurisdictional isolated wetland X are not included in the table above.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
Stream BBB
PER
DWQ
5
125
S2 T
Dewatering
Stream BBB
PER
DWQ
5
40
S3 P
Fill
Stream AJ-AJS-AJSS
INT
DWQ
2
397
S4 P
Fill
Stream AAA
INT
DWQ
3
50
S5 T
Dewatering
Steam AAA
INT
DWQ
3
20
S6 T
Excavation
Stream BB
PER
DWQ
5
40
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
672
3i. Comments:
A waiver is requested for impacts to intermittent streams AJ, AJS, & AJSS. These are a series of disconnected intermittent stream segments with a
hydrology primarily driven by flashy overland flow. Impacts to these features (397 If) are unavoidable due to the engineering and design constraints of
the commercial development. Please refer to the cover letter and Waiver Study section enclosed for more details.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
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
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: 0.231 ac of permanent impacts to non-jurisidictional, isolated open water pond Y are not listed in the above table.
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)
B 1
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 wetland, opportunities to avoid these areas were limited. Impacts to site surface waters associated with
the proposed development were limited through site selection, location, design, & location/orientation of the proposed lots and access routes.
Headwalls and 2:1 slopes are used throughout the site where practicable to avoid additional impacts to streams and wetlands. The impacts to streams
AJ, AJS, & AJSS are unavoidable to due the constraints imposed by commercial construction requirements (i.e. flat grade & access requirements).
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.
Large headwalls and 2:1 & 3:1 slopes are proposed to keep the road crossing as narrow as possible and avoid the need for additional riprap. A
catchement will direct runoff to the top of stream AAA to maintain hydrology below the minimal impact. One temporary open cut for a sewerline
installation will be restored to pre-existing condition per the attached stream stabilization detail.
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:
572 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: Proposed ratios are 0.5:1 for discontinuous intermittent stream, 1:1 for intermittent stream, and 2:1 for perennial stream impacts.
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).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes X❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
49
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:
Storm
water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has
not yet been submitted to the City of
Concord but will be designed to meet their criteria.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Concord
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
City of Concord
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑Yes ❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater
generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via sewer lines.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ 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?
A threatened/Endangered species assessment was conducted in which no species were identified. Habitat does exist for the Northern Long Eared Bat
but the project is exempt as noted in the included T&E report.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
No essential fish habitat in this region.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑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?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
https://gis.cabarruscounty.us/mycabarrusgis; www.fema.gov
Daniel Digitally signed by Daniel Kuefler
DN: cn=Daniel Kuefler, o=WEPG,
ou, email=daniel.kuefler@wetlands-
c=US
epg.cDate:
Daniel Kuefler
01
Kuefler Date: 29.10.03 12:06:30-04'00'
10-03-2019
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

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: Cannon Run
Property Address: NW of Harris Rd & Odell School Rd.
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): See Map Exhibit
Select one: Other
Name: Mark Swartz
Company: Charlotte Real Estate Development
Mailing Address: 4350 Main St, Suite 220, Harrisburg, NC 28075
Telephone Number: 704-454-7807
Electronic Mail Address_ [e-mail]
Z-V U
Property Owner / Interested Buyer * / 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: 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]

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretory
TIM BAUMGARTNER.
oftftmr
Steve Schreiner
Schreiner Design
403 Gilead Road, Suite H
Huntersville, NC 28078
NORTH CAROLINA
En rortmental Quality
September 16, 2019
Expiration of Acceptance: 3/16/2020
Project: Cannon Run County: Cabarrus
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification 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 Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
(8-digit HUC
Yadkin 03040105 Warm Stream 572
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: Daniel Kuefler, agent
Sincerely,
Ja es B Stanfill
As anagement Supervisor
aEQ.�
Oyr�d9alldr�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Millgatton Services
2F Ions Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

N
cd
N
Q
rd
►u
Maps/Plans

--
sutis-rTiwrr .� COA
a
TRANCUX
y PFIHEW
PUNTS
0av+dsu)I Hw
LUNGTON CHASE � SITE � r 73
r'. $Ills
Cox Mill F7F'CMW PA
APPROXIMATE — SCjnESA?
PROJECT BOUNDARY KYOKOR PRO
AiYT! V.10GCS
STUDY LIMITS z
��fFf�Stfl,� �i
Da Video,
m
avenSCrG ft i ;'N
r..
V05S CREEK I
°sp1-6 I
{t "-n
I � �
� w
I _ WALKERS GLEE!
FIGURE NO. CANNON RUN Drawn By: Reviewed By:
1 EPG
Cabarrus Co., NC NRN -SR
VICINITY MAP DATE:
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 9/3/18
[e-mail] EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
[phone] SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION
www.wetlands-epg.com

` J J' ` '�•
44
- .ill
.rye'
It 73 f
�.
New
+ 4
PROPERTY BOUNDARY � •
STUDY LIMITS vt-' ','•,..?�
t
r
t* 1
VL
or
F L ! y I
r }
d 14F
y , t ; P&
�.
WPLLIm Flo
.
�- .
� r ' .4
i` . �.y �',77.
�N 7- -
�_
FIGURE NO. CANNON RUN Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Z VIEG
Cabarrus Co., NC NRN LSR
AERIAL MAP DATE:
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 9/3/18
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION

li 4 ��� * � I } I I�1 i 1, • ri •k '_ r�y�;k � , � � y r I
' F1 �� r• �{r
• •', I L' ~F I a� F� I � r ■ '� r+ ,l� 1 L_ M1•:r'ir ,. _� ,. .i�__
I�� 5y � rl I r+4� � r�� _. 'L —� - � _ �r 4+Y.� �"`�.-�r"-ti'- .,-{�•f.
'�� Imo• �, t • r I j
' I & ' l r APPROXIMATE F _
i
'? f PROJECT BOUNDARY
_ c14-1 STUDY LIMITS
I •
L �{ '
{
ROCKY
f RIVER
4 '
LOCATION
Lat: 35.4345 °N
Long:-80.7302 °W
H U C: 03040105
UPPER ROCKY RIVER
FIGURE NO.
3
Iii 1
SCALE
1:24,000
Pwt l"I
USGS QUAD
Kannapolis, NC
CANNON RUN
Cabarrus Co., NC
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
USGS MAP DATE:
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 9/3/18
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION

W
2
Flap Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
A,cras In ADl
Parcen . crF AOI
CcB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to B
26.0
21.1%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
ChA
Uhewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2
7B_0
14.7%
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8
34_9
29_3%
percent slopes
End
Enon sandy loam, 8 in 16
=
0.2%
percent slopes
PoB
Pain -dexter loam, 2 to B
5.6%
percent slopes
36.0
Pod
Poindexter loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
-,r r•++
T..r.ic f.,� Aesi ..! I.wa.,dtr i ::
FIGURE NO. CANNON RUN Drawn By: Reviewed By:
4 ABC Dr I Cabarrus Co., NC NRN LSR
NRCS PUBLISHED SOILS MAP
-WATERS OF THE U.S.-
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION
DATE:
9/3/18

Parcel:46813976020000
Rocky River Crossing, LLC
4350 Main St, Ste. 201
Harrisburg. NC. 28075
Parcel:46813948300000
Harrisburg Town Center IX, LLC
4350 Main St, Ste. 201
Harrisburg, NC, 28075
Parcel:46813885470000
J&B Dev & Mgmt Inc, LLC
4350 Main St, Ste. 201
Harrisburg, NC, 28075
Parcel: 46813727630000
Rocky River Crossing, LLC
4350 Main St, Ste. 201
Harrisburg, NC, 28075
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
ITS
Rocky River Crossing, LLC
4350 Main St, Ste. 201
Harrisburg, NC, 28075
Parcel: 46814903800000
Rocky River Crossing, LLC Parcel: 46814926790000
4350 Main St, Ste. 201 Rocky River Crossing, LLC
Harrisburg. NC. 28075 4350 Main St, Ste. 201
Harrisburg, NC, 28075
Parcel: 46814873030000
- Erjola 550 Kinderkamack, LLC
4350 Main St, Ste. 201
Harrisburg, NC, 28075
Parcel: 46815860810000
David McCord
8825 Harris Rd
Concord, NC, 28027
Parcel: 46814702320000
Parcel:
Parcel:
Elizabeth Mayes
Parcel:
4681574385j16815765640000
4 Reynolds Place
46815860810000
James HoodDavid
McCord
Asheville, NC, 28804
Parcel: 468147023200'�e00
David McCord
8900 Harris
8825 Harris Rd
Bill & Mary McCord Trust
8825 Harris Rd
Concord, NCConcord,
28027
NC,
1703 Woodside Lane
Concord, NC,
28027
Virginia Beach, VA, 23454
28027
Drawn By:
Reviewed By:
FIGURE NO.
CANNON RUN
5
Cabarrus Co., NC
DCK
LSR
TAX PARCEL MAP DATE:
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 8/29/19
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION

Figure 6
i PERENNIAL STREAM C
ON -SITE LENGTH = 527'
-7— (0.017 AC)
-1 T INTERMITTENT STREAM IE -
_j — ON -SITE LENGTH = 207",
(0.008 AC)
it
Al
JN AVE -_ J ��� WETLAND (43 0 SF) W
---- \� / (0.1 AC)
IAL STREAM 0 S_\
LENGTH = 800'\
(0.033AC)
(206 SQ FT)
j (0.005 AC)
PERENNIAL STREAM BB '
ON -SITE LENGTH = 1322'
(0.185 AC)
WETLANDE/EE
(9388 SQ FT) ,
✓" '\ INTERMITTENT STREAM HH
� LENGTH = 367' (0.036 AC)
PERENNIAL STREAM DD -
i ,
PROJECT BOUNDARY �!
-
(TYP) /
INTERMITTENT STREAM GG J
LENGTH = 155' (0.018 AC)
r� --;
Al.
WETLAND G
WETLAND A \, !
(2636 SQ FT) (1642 SQ FT)
(0.061 AC) (0.038 AC)
INTERMITTENT STREAM AJSS j
\ LENGTH = 121' (0.006 AC) i
INTERMITTENT STREAM AJS
LENGTH = 193' (0.016 AC)
INTERMITTENT STREAM AJ
_ LENGTH = 148' (0.014 AC) ( I
••� r INTERMITTENT STREAM SS' NON -JURISDICTIONAL ( `
LENGTH = 332' (0.031 AC) , OPEN WATER POND Y 0
1 (10072 SQ FT) (0.231 AC)
Q
IRRIGATION' POND Z L..� " O
(54488 SQ FT) (1.25 AC) ...... 1 !'
NON -JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND X --; O
% ( �---_(3910 SQ FT) (0.090 AC) 10
WETLAND LL WETLAND PP '----!'
(1853 SQ FT) (0.043 AC)-- -_�_ � 1223 SQ FT)
WETLAND MM —
(66 SQ FT)(0.002 AC)
INTERMITTENT STREAM KK
LENGTH = 121' (0.007 AC)
WETLAND NN /
i
(764 SQ FT) f
(0.018 AC)
�r
PERENN
WETLAND 00
(23615 SQ FT)
(0.542 AC)
PERENNIAL STREAM FF
ON -SITE LENGTH = 283'
(0.017) AC
LENGTH = 1415'
(0.144) AC
(0.005 AC)
WETLAND JJ
(453 SQ FT)
(0.010 AC)
WETLAND II
(110 SQ FT)
(0.003 AC) \
HARRIS ROAD --��
250' 0' 250' 500' 1000' -----= ti; y ---- I
SCALE: 1 " = 500'
WETLAND EEE
(96 SQ FT)
(0.002 AC)
I— WETLAND CCC
(88 SQ FT)
(0.002 AC)
INTERMITTENT STREAM AAA
r LENGTH = 345'
/ (0.019 AC)
W
WETLAND DDD m
(34 SQ FT) j
(0.0008 AC) Z
Y
U
I <
z• O
U
I I d
i
U
Z
7
V)
(6
Q =
Z V)
J N
O U
Q m Z
vcl) O
C)
�pw p
Z �p U
C O � N
U0v w
M
p� N

rigure t
Q 4`�
250' immi
250' 500' 1000,
SCALE: 1 " = 500'
T T-. -- - 7; A\
( 10'
-----1--� `�
MOSS PLANTATION AVE
i
(TYP)
i 1
ATED SE BT ACK \
PM BUFFER / r
�y BMP#1
b x
PROP SEWER CROSSING
i (40 LF TEMP IMPACT)
(125 LF STREAM IMI
LF TEMPORARY IMI
)
BMP#6
BMP#4'-
BMP0#5
;<
BMP#7 _ w
BMP #8
TATE�8D SETBACK
STREAM BUFFER ---
mr- --
PROPOSED STREAMM/ETLAND IMPACT
(50 LF) (0.003 AC)
20 LF TEMPORARY IMPACT)
HARRIS ROAD_
�40
x. !17,y,c -. .
PROPOSED
STREAM/WETLAND IMPACT
(397 LF) (0.099 AC)
PROJECT BOUNDARY
(TYP)
AC)
U
_
•L
(o
Q
O
Z_ uj
QJ
J
O
U cA
U
2
z
�
F- co
)
d
Lu
o
0
0 Lu
C _
:3 Z (o
Lu
H
J
-------- --
0 O
Q
C U o
oC
Z co
Lu
�1 W
Z
Q
N
0)
p O
rl' z
O
N N
r
ILL.
to
0
a 75 O` 4)
J
a ci
N U
o cn a U cV
a Q

Figure 8
PROP. PUBLIC UTILITYi ! //�/ /- .�,•�,'�'�' ��� p�L ��'
(TYP) �' %� ✓ — �-41 / �T /�� • i
PROP. WATERLINEAl
TYP E
ss
�
IINTEINTERMITTENT
N N /
RMITTENTSTREAMKK
LU
j%/ �� EXIST. STREAM LWL
\ a WETLAND NN. ,JdTOP OF BANK 7,/�� ,I - v///// / / ILL.
NO IMPACT PROPOSED" ' j - (/ 9� ��ii / / ;%i i- —-\j _\l �i/ l
V` (0.018 AC)
vv EXIST. STREAM
CENTERLINE-
/�7 �� i -✓ y it 58 W
PROP. ROAD CROSSING OVER / - �' ;� QW
' %��� •--..A ���Vvvv�, �� r.�/ j PERENNIAL STREAM BBB
, / 125 PERMANENT IMPACTS
/ /i� i•.•: '-/ '// vSEE SHEETS 4 TO 6 i � / i
co U
a � PROJECT BOUNDARY" d Z
(TYP) fn
0.2
_ -y .-.-.-.- L� \ STORM
�\�� /�• .c.-.- .-yf /i- - -- ---/ i , \ I 1�\ \ \ �� ��� \ ` fDRAINAGE(TYP)
PERENNIAL STREAM BBB - y .v / m
LU
WETLAND 00 % r O _
L....� '/// i / rNO IMPACT PROPOSED \� _ / / --I \r / i� / j \\ I r Z (n
PROP. SANITARY 1 I / / Q
SEWER TYP �/ I r
��// /'\ / / O Z
'I _ - T -Y- =a` �L >� O-�' �%/ _ 53 _ J� y - / / // / / l \ = U L W
44
LEGEND:
- ON -SITE BUFFER
z
� J �
z
WETLANDS Y M
U c N
~ N O O
z N II
O
STREAM CENTERLINE o i6LL
50' 0' 0 50' 100' 200' J L
SCALE: I" = 100' ol
6 a a
a U)

Figure 9
15" RCP i
-- / , _ Aso
—
/
moo
PROP. HEADWALLS
z8 15" RCP — f� �/� ( �1
(DESIGN BY OTHERS) — J _ — / O
662 — —15" RCP
PROP. COFFER DAM
(OR APPROVED EQUAL) 1 V / ` PROP. PUMP 6�
(20 LF TEMP STREAM IMPACT) INLET LOCATION �-
r w 20 LF TEMP. STREAM IMPACT FOR DEWATERING _
EXIST. STREAM �� _ — �, _ (SEE RESTORATION EXHIBITS)
%_ _TOP OF BANKS
\\\\FLOW / _ ---_ Z
\ '�RECT�oN / 1511 RCP (WT) — >
PROP. COFFER DAM (OR APPROVED EQUAL) — —
��� ,(20 LF TEMP STREAM IMPACT)
i) co
Q =
Z V) Q
— — IL
—
_/'3:1 SLOPE — J U
Q N
PROP. 116.4 LF OF 102 U � coEXIST. STREAM i i i PROP.
CONCRETE CULVERT
CENTERLINE (BURIED 1') i Q
PROP. Pump / / �� / i / _ — -- — _ W
DISCHARGE LOCATION / (INV: ±649.42)
20 LF TEMP. STREAM IMPACT Z
FOR DEWATERING
(SEE RESTORATION EXHIBITS)-
- 30" RCP / 24" RCP 0 0 z
w
55 T I 1 1 I i cd Z co LU
2 / 30" RCP A�\ U o U
LEGEND:
ON -SITE BUFFER D
z
z
WETLANDS Y M
U rn w
NOTE: zz N
STREAM CENTERLINE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT ALL o LL
TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO WATERSTAV 25' 0� 25' 50' 100, 2 9 a "' 0
'o d
OF THE U.S. TO LESS THAN 90 DAYS. SCALE: I" = SOS a ¢ `� a
a U)

Figure 10
MmMMMMMMMMMmMMMM
675
675
m
s
ROAD CENTERLINE
Ems
670
670
"m9
NEE
665
INN
665
660
MIMME
MIMME
660
U z
z
0
NEON
MEEMEME
655
655
•L N
c N
Q = 0
Z uj 0C
_j m U
NEI
0.2 ,
650
650
Q fn
m
w
�U) LU
0w
:3z FU N
°e w
645
645
cw g
00 a z
C U 2 w
U�� CL
w
w
6+00
7+00
8+00
z
Z
Y
U
Z n
3: c!
O
o = 0
~
C, y O
SCALE: I" = V V
3' 0'
3'
6' 12'
o
N
o
ai to
0
SCALE: I" = 60' H
3o' 0'
30'
60' 120'
Q w
-
■■■■
■■■■■
■■III
I■
II
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■

Figure 11
675
670
665
• -
655
650
645
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■ECM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
� I=
n° o
nnnnnnu
n -inn
II IIliI II II i .''%n
n — n I=
1= -�
- -
�
-
• :
-
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■'
■■■■■
,
-
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
MENEM
IM
.1
_
�����
1 - •-
..1
'�����������
MENEM
MEMO■■■■■■■■■
■■■■ME■EM■M■M■NIMI
�. ��
nE-
�1I p
I"Ilkllk`-
_ o
:jX"
fl
���g��������F,�1,—r_
,'11911—III
�
L=11
HM!
6-
' 9j�EM
IEEEE
IMEEM
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
�.■��
■■®��
__�I
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�I■■■■■■■■■■■■I
-•-
�iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�I■■■
CONCRETE
1
■■ICIRCULAR
MMINE.P
■■■■■■■■■■■■E■Mai_■■■O■■■■■■■I��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■E■■■
M■■■M
Mom■
/ �■■o■
■■M■�
��■!���1
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
ME■■M■■EEMMEE._..
,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
.
. .
. ..
:.
.
.
.
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00
SCALE: I" = 6' V 3' 0 3' 6 IT SCALE: I" = 60' H 30' 0. 30' 60' 120'
675
• un
$o
670
Ao
665
• • 1
z
O
655
w
N
i
co
LU
J
Q
�
p
za)
a-
650
"
'
Qa
m
m
�co
�)
w
645
Z F0
N
°cow
a
oo�
= U O
w
LU
640
VC)0
w
w
m
z
z
Z
U
>j N
0)_ _
c
~
6+00
N y O
—
Z
N �
oo Q
�
Q
0
U
a�a)
to
0
Q <

Figure 12
_
L
WETLAND G TO BE FILLED / ---
v�� 9
(0.038 AC) I/ /I
SEE SHEET ,,
N/
/A 11 / II /I �/ ✓/�-,i/ A I /, ,,� '%, ;� I�� _ � � Il���lilhlll�r //%
\ �/ � Illy 10.1 Ih I� � i" �V � % - �i�' ' /ice,- I I /11111�I I✓ /
PROJECT BOUNDARY x
LU
(TYP)
W
LL.
STREAM � - ���k � \ \ \ \� � I Z)
CENTERLINE"
INTERMITTENT STREAM AJSS v
-TOBEFILLED
LU
WETLANDA
TO BE FILLED
1, (0.081 AC ! Z w
-7�
„INTERMITTENT STREAM AJS
TO BE FILLED 193 LF co
fn U
J V)
U_ Q
�� i , i��
II I' PERENNIAL :, �� \) - / � � � / / / / / , i �/
II STREAM C � v )�
NOIMPACT� v / / �/ /"I / / / Q
/���� \y ' �� /U Ilj /� Q
PROPOSEDvl�� U � W
\[ Y q ///
v\o � is � //r,� / INTERMITTENT STREAM AJ
\TO BE FILLED (83 LF)�_�
SEESHEET8 \ `\ n%\ \ ram'\C� \ to
if of
I,I�rd vv I A w
iv / � \ � ��� v I v \ v v v v � A �I � I� � vh � i�� w 1<v vn (�'�-•v Ivw I � � � H
++
y � _ APPROX. LOCATION OF �
dj ✓ -- EXISTING BOTTOMLESS V v vv v\VvAI I I �v vv / i��- - / �`l / v �l _ / i U LLI
ARCH CULVERT �/ `=-- I I i j I = Z (U
/ � / ✓ ` TOP OF BANK
\ \\\ \ / < I/ \\�\ (\ i Y; \ 1 i/I \� V U U
t
, Avg
LEGEND:
ON -SITE BUFFER
z
�—J z
0 WETLANDS � "' —
Q O) N_
O O
~ N O O
z N II
O O LL
STREAM CENTERLINE
50' 0' 50' 100' 200' J ai o to
SCALE: I" = 100' a a co a �'�`
a U)

Figure 13
Profile
View of Stream
AJ
=tl
�m
�sE
Profile View of Wetland
G
Aza
700
700
695
695
705
705
690
690
700
700
685
PROP. GRADE @
685
695
-- ---
695
Z
STREAM CENTERLINE
IX
680
680
690
PROP. GRADE @
690
7 z
U 0
WETLAND CENTERLINE
i
co
Q = W
675
---
675
685
685
N
j a '
H
U_
Q 0) cC
670
---
670
680
- ---
680
= a N
Ow Z
665
665
675
675
�z �
g cC p LU
660
660
670
670
c z ° NI
#
GRADE @
STREAM CENTERLINE
EXIST. GRADE @
WETLAND
rN 0 U OD
—
,EXIST.
CENTERLINE
V
655 1
655
665
665
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50
w
m
D
z
Z
Z
SCALE 1" = 10' V S. 0' S. 10'
20'
Y
U
c)
0) N
N
o IL
SCALE: I" = I OO' H 50' 0' S0' 00'
200'
U
a ¢
" o
0
Dina v�OO
cn

Figure 14
EXIST. 20 SANITARY � r /EXIST. STREAM / // / / o n
/// / P O� BANK / // / / `// ^ e
� SEWER EASEMENT (TYP) / / / � $
PERENNIAL STREAM BB J,�� = �� / / l / �� , �llll l7 ' / �hi A= o
/ \ 40 LF TEMPORARY IMPACT
VPROPOSEDFOR OPEN
CUT OF SEWER
PROP. 30' SANITARY I \ \ / / PROP. SANITARY /
\ / / / / SEWER (TYP)
SEWER EASEMENT (TYP) A A 1�/
—�� W,PVC Pipe
U
Z
f81, DIP
SSMH-2 Ln
/ EX-10 / / / / \ \ / / (6
/ l _ >
/
30_
' STREAM BUFFER �— � �� j / Z cn �
0.2 Z
10' VEGETATED SETBACK — _ Q N
PROP. SANITARY SEWER
TIE IN LOCATION
U) z
1 _ /�o a, o
A / � l i Avg �I / W U
EXIST. STREAM / / O O -- 0�
J( CENTERLINE / / // O W
�,�// cd p
U U U
LEGEND: co
ON SITE BUFFER
z
z
z
WETLANDS Y M
U rn0-0
w
Q
F N N O O N I �
STREAM CENTERLINE o icy
25' 0' 25' 50' 100, J to
SCALE: I" = SO' a Q
a U)

Figure 15
—
V
1 I ti I I �� i 1� PROP. 20' STORM DRAINGE
uf'/ I yE -� - _ • u
EASEMENT(TYP) r / /i`I
on
A
u8 NON -JURISDICTIONAL(
OPEN WATER POND Y
TO BE FILLED FOR FUTURE
IIII,I, III III A I �' „
()�.�ix
IIII 11 I In \ DEVELOPMENT 0.231 AC I I I �
I I �Y k / c;(!
-
�V - - -
V III If II II III � � ��_ J, I / I , V II � � � y��/ �� , -V I ��A-� ` � 692
II III �II 11 UJ �
/ II It
/i vlull II n - NON -JURISDICTIONAL
v A PROJECT BO(1N6ARY�v 11 1 1 III �' 2oa
vil it I\��� �TYP) v I II I ) I I v�vv Il 9s vs % WETLAND X TO BE FILLED zoz I 2oa x
(o.oso AC) � I zot ' I /— / i � � w
zo 1 /
PROP. WATERMAIN' i / ` LL
LL
(TYP) �—
�I m
filIIIIII / r� �— VENVd i Z
MQSS P — _ — Z w
PROP. SANITARY �� // �� 7LU
SEWER (TYP),_,- ' / —` — J eo
yq i� // � / r� �< I V V A--__�� -s Q
- B3 92 91 ' \ �� I 1
O I 90 ��..,�� \ I 1 Ii V _ _ _ 83 _ 1 i (0
Ss i/ as `� s� �� v PROP. STORM i -683-� Q Z Q
WETLAND PP TO BE FILLED as 85 DRIANAGE (TYP) Z a
O
��- / --� < a)
I 2 z
� I�� I ,ea i s9 ( I o��f�/ O _ � a �
7fi _ O W
co W
OO •�
r
CU o Z
RESPECT ST— _ s — = ----- ' cd O CO
r
U U U
LEGEND: co
ON -SITE BUFFER
J C9
z
N/ETLnNDS U M —
Q 0) N_ _
O
~ N O O
z N II ILL
STREAM CENTERLINE6 00 O
50' 0' 50' 100' 200' J 6 � o r p
SCALE: I" = 100' a a
a U)

Figure 16
683 - - - -\ll 11\\ I \ I
' PROP. 20' STORM DRAINGEJ
EASEMENT (TYP)
,( gas _
;fie
- s RESPECT�Gil
\ iv`I I moo
---
PROP. SANITARY -� - - - _ \ Z I\ \PROJECT 13 U R
— ; SEWER (TYP) (TYP),\
r'� 1 160 v i -�
- - - - - 59 _ _ / PROP. WATERMAIN, ns \\ -c ,(129
/ \1
1' (TYP) I
WETLAND EEE - _ v t v I I , /
I � I A � � I � I AAI 1'
coNO IMPACT PROPOSED_-
W
'
�� /� �� A - AVA AV / / I 1 I 1 I I I I \)/�✓/ / / W
LL
ILL
131 Z)
WETLAND CCC
TE FILLED }-- / - - 1' \ \ I Z
O BW
_�- — __-�, — _ _' (0.002 AC) 6 �� / Aj ' ItvI v i i i 1 �2 i I A Q
- _ -- - ,�(7 j � 1 13 /
'INTERMITTENTSTREAMAAA
PERMANENT IMPACTS Q
k/20LFTEMPORARYIMP
ACT S175��% � \\ 1\\ \\\�i/'�, >_ �
/
/�)
\ I
Q'
- A Z W
, ro I
iai I i i /� '' O U Q
PROP. STORM rr-�_ - O W
j� _ DRIANAGE (TYP)
co r-
W H
Z Z
W
O O -
173� C Z 2 w
(v O c H
V c) U Z
LEGEND: w
m
ON -SITE BUFFER NOTE: D
J WALL DRAINAGE TO
DISCHARGE AT TOP z
WETLANDS OF STREAM a p)
N_
� O �
F N O O
Z co II ILL
STREAM CENTERLINE '� O
50' 0' 50' 100' 200' J
SCALE: I" = 100' a a �' a �'
a 1n

NOTES FOR STREAM BANK STASILIZATEN=
I. UPON OOhPLET112NOFSrAFAmCRDG-2sIGNk3F, CONTRACTORSHALL
AND ME kkNCALLV TA&P(FA]SPMFIC DENSITY)SOILS INTO RACE AND CRESS
DWRMED SURFACES.
2. Br;GINNNO Al A PONT ZAj+QVE WATER "FAtEELAVAT.01%GRASS tASrV%Err0
ARE" (SMED. MMI<IMRBSTRAW MU_OA)STRE-AM SANK, TOP OF RbAIK AND
DKS7URBFbAAFASLPLMIDOFSTREAM
�. INSTALL CpIRFIQER NETemT 5TARTIIN4 MINIMUM 17 P"OW WATER SVFWACE
ELEVATION AND EY{TENEANG A mNiMU6I ur OrVOilb TOP DF RANK MMMIM
SPECIFCCATICAS MR" FIBER NETI}AAT AS FOLLOWS:
• MIN. THICKFNL%013 f,3J INCHES
• 100% 000ONUT FIBER AND WOVEN IHfO TWINE
AVG. WEIGHTCF 20OUNCESI94YrL
d_ COIPLMIER MFVMAT SHALL M SECLRELY HELD IN PEACE W'94 Lk 84F'NOODP_N
STAKES AND MARE STAPLES SAS NEEDEek
R INSTAL. LIVE VAKE5 BEONWN@AT WATIW SURFACE ELLVAtON ANEi Ex1ENtHNG
2 VrRTICAC FU7 UP T'FIE$SREAM BANK. SEE LIVE STAKO M7AtL POPAMffIDNAL
RECA mmrNTS.
5, INCTALL"T FENCE WJWIRE REINFORCEMENT AL*Na TAP OF B.NK(ACa4CENT TO
END Or COk FIBER MViMAtf FOR VOUTH OF 0IST1TPBE6 SOIL$.
GSM[ FIBER NF-TI'MAT
�k
ORA$$ (WP3: MULCT -I $ FERtL12E}
REMAINING DISTURBED STREAJ~16:W+If
mWAS INCLUmNGTOFS OF BANK
(UNDER COR NET1MAT
LIVE STAKE (Y&LONS OR
UPECIES APPRO'ED UY
LODDH£CF FOR FIRST Yd'
ABOVE NOFM6.L WATER
SURFACE ELEVATION
WATER SURFAMELEVATION
1_ LVESTAKES SHALL BEAPPROXIMATELY BfIMLENGTH
7- OVIE, $1AKr6 $a-IALL Ar D.C? - ur IN EAAMETFA AT T1h*-
❑F A-kNTtNG
7. UVE $1At(=t &HA 1 EE BLACK NOW M SPECIES
SPMPIED BY CDFJDF£C OR CCNRLTANT
a SPEdE$8waLOrb0Am4hftATTWEOFACCUSITCN
AM14b PLANTING AND LOCAaV GRON1N~VflSTED
a LIVV$TAXE$ 5NALLM SPACM11? D.C.
9: LIVE sTAWES S 6" BE PL6XrEP A MINIMLIFA OF 14r M
DEPTH WIN n¢ MORE THAN mz'CP STAKE ExFOSEC
LIVE- STAKE DETAIL
EXTEND COIR'19ER L%AT
BANK
INSTALL 51LT FENCE
REINFORCED WITH NDG
WIRE ,ATTOPOFBANK
{EDGE OF CCIR FIBER
H0AYIAT7
I
-I I ICI
;d —1 1 1
LARGER C5HDT OR IMPORTJ
MAY RE USED TO REFORM
9TREAIFBANK I9T CAC 9VN 18.4F
SD&SHALL COMP STRE M
SIDE FAW OFROGK sTAOK.
IUSE OF ROCK rO ANCHOR BANK
Is 0"04n)
—I IT--7I I II I I I I I
EXTEND COIR FetFk NETMAT
' I I 1r BELOW WATER SURFACE
ELEVATION
TRFA BANK STABILIZATION -LIVE STAKE
TYPICAL DETAIL - N.T:&
FIGURE NO. CANNON RUN Drawn By: Reviewed By:
17 Cabarrus Co., NC HAC LSR
DATE:
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
Typical Detail — N.T.S. 8/26/2019
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDEQ VERIFICATION

C
O
.4-J
c�
.E
v
v
w
.Jurisdictional
Determination Information

-- --t- I`
Discontinuous Intermittent Streams:
LEGEND
AJ (148 If), AJS (193 If), AJSS (121 If)
Wetland G
Q Project boundary study limits
0.038 ac
if
OV Stream
WetlandA
-
' •-,'*.__ }
Wetland
r'++
I
ti .I
0.061 ac
_ �'� f ka
R +�
Intermittent Stream SS
Landscape photoldirection
Sy II r S . {fT F -
-332 If
�-
I
I
II
Perennial Stream C
J
Non -Jurisdictional
}
I
' •�' s". (Isolated) Pond Y
0.231 ac
f
Intermittent Stream IE
5, �r3
Wetland PP
207 If
'.
0.005 ac
Wetland MM
3 ., f f 1
Non -Jurisdictional
0.002 ac
y if
(Isolated) Wetland X
Wetland DW
i "5t+��}}�s #,
0.090ac
Wetland LL
0.1 ac
0.043 ac
{ •y + 5� _v _h _�yir
Y; --
Non -Jurisdictional Pond Z
,! ,; ` -
,¢� - x l
Wetland EEE
(irrigation
pond dug in upland)
f.• it 6
Ji
0.002 ac
r
1.25 ac
y
x
Wetland CCC
Perennial Stream OS
' r 1t1 ref{ _ �J 5`I
_
5k
0.002 ac
800 If
+
f NCDEQ STREAM rFr x'
8 .h �+~' FORM BBB
�
Intermittent
_ - •
Stream AAA
Wetland CC
{ . - f'r+
-, -- - --
r 4 fx -
345 If
-0.005 ac
r
I NCDEQ }
USACE WETLAN -{ ~_ yi
I I
_ } , - i ti
STREAM
DATA FORM 0 _}"r
''� 4
- ��
x i+
Perennial BB
} 'i FORM
,
Wetland DDD
Stream
f+-
-0.0008 ac
GG
I 5 kl- r` _
}
Ste• I' f+ I
r
4 -
Wetland II
-
-0.003ac
- l
--- -
-
Perennial Stream BBB
Wetland JJ
1,415 If
Wetland E/EE
UPLAND 0.010 ac
x`
- -
-0.216 ac
Intermittent Stream HH
DATA POINT i '
Intermittent Stream KK
- 367 If
x .� _
I 5 3
-121 If
'S
Wetland NN
Intermittent StreamGG
_f'{•s
-0.018ac
/'.
-155 If
4ti
•N
I J
Perennial Stream FF
Wetland 00
I
- 283 If
0.542 ac
*** USACE VERIFICATION 10/31/18 ***
*** NCDEQ VERIFICATION 6/14/18 & 10/9/18 ***
Drawn By:
Reviewed
FIGURE NO.
CANNON RUN
18
Cabarrus Co., NC
NRN
LSR
DATE:
•
DELINEATION MAP
-WATERS OF THE U.S.-
9/3/18
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
.... .. .. ...
SUBJECT TO USACE VERIFICATION

Iry11, ,eD9�'. y� ,`
„r. S'...yy. r, ~a:3:-•��
01
i � �• ram, ��". �s>•� 4�',�y .. ••�.:' 4�zi" - '���:;,%-f�+i.
op
lb
dw
lip
iA
Aw
�.• I q �' _ .tea h r }' r!'r 'Y� �JC•.
•, ' x^ - -a •: _ .-1. tin.
' �� � .. � "� • . mod' -..� ,. ; .� i
• A6 a
' *� s r - -.

WETLAND 00 - PHOTO 5
NON -JURISDICTIONAL (ISOLATED) OPEN WATER POND Y - PHOTO 6
Cannon Run
YVE PG Cabarrus Co., NC-4/3/18
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

WETLAND E/EE - PHOTO 7
EXISTING SCM/BMP - PHOTO 8
Cannon Run
YVE PG Cabarrus Co., NC — 8/15/17
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC.

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date:
8/27/18 1 Evaluator: I NRN
Easting:
-80.7332
Project:
I Cannon Run: Intermittent Stream B
Northing:
35.4374
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
F27.0
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
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
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
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
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology Subtotal
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
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
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
Hydrology Subtotal
7.5
C. Biology
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
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
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
5.0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins.
(version 4.11)

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date:
8/14/17 1 Evaluator: I NRN
Easting:
-80.7336
Project:
I Cannon Run: Intermittent Stream GG
Northing:
35.4336
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
F25.0
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
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
1
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
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
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology Subtotal
12.5
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
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
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
3
Hydrology Subtotal
7.5
C. Biology
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
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
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
5.0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins.
(version 4.11)

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date:
4/3/18 1 Evaluator: I NRN
Easting:
-80.7304 W
Project:
Cannon Run: Perennial Stream BBB
Northing:
35.4345 N
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
38.0
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
A. Geomorphology
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
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. Hydrology
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
2
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
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
Hydrology Subtotal
12.0
C. Biology
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
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
6.0
* perennial streams may also be identified usinq other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins.
(version 4.11)

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cannon Run City/County: Concord/Cabarrus Sampling Date: 4/3/18
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: wetland 00
Investigator(s): NRN, LSR Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 - 15
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.4336 Long:-80.7335 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: PoD: Poindexter loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
x Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
x Drainage Patterns (B10)
x Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
x Sediment Deposits (B2) _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 (135)
—Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 2
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X 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 (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Wetland 00
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
35
Yes
FACW
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Acer rubrum
25
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
3.
Platanus occidentalis
15
Yes
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88.9% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
75
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
38 20% of total cover:
15
OBL species 45 x 1 = 45
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 85 x 2 = 170
1.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
15
Yes
FACW
FAC species 70 x 3 = 210
2.
Acer rubrum
15
Yes
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
Sambucus nigra
15
Yes
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Platanus occidentalis
10
No
FACW
Column Totals: 200 (A) 425 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.13
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
55
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
28 20% of total cover:
11
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Microstegium vimineum
30
Yes
FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Carex crinita
25
Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Carex lurida 20 Yes OBL
4.
Juncus effusus
10
No
FACW
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
85
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
43 20% of total cover:
17
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
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: Wetland 00
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' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 7.5YR 5/1 75 5YR 5/8 25 C PL/M Sandy Prominent redox concentrations
10-20 7.5YR 5/1 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C PL Sandy Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (All)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
X Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
x Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cannon Run City/County: Concord/Cabarrus Sampling Date: 4/3/18
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Upland DP1
Investigator(s): NRN, LSR Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 - 15
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.4336 Long:-80.7335 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: PoD: Poindexter loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
Upland Data Point 1 was taken approximately 30' north of Wetland O
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (B14)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (B2) _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 (135)
—Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(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 (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland DP1
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Quercus alba
35
Yes
FACU
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Quercus rubra
30
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
20
Yes
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
85
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
43
20% of total cover:
17
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
Elaeagnus angustifolia
65
Yes
FACU
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
Ligustrum sinense
25
Yes
FACU
FACU species 305 x 4 = 1220
3.
Quercus alba
5
No
FACU
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Quercus rubra
5
No
FACU
Column Totals: 305 (A) 1220 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.00
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
_
3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
100
=Total Cover
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
50
20% of total cover:
20
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
AI/ium vineale
35
Yes
FACU
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Polystichum acrostichoides
10
Yes
FACU
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
45
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
23
20% of total cover:
9
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
Lonicera japonica
75
Yes
FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
75
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
38
20% of total cover:
15
Present? Yes No X
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
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' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 7.5YR 4/3 100 Loamy/Clayey
3-20 7.5YR 4/6 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (All)
_ 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)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 1479 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

Waiver Request
Study

®-umE Field -verification of disconnected streamsegments Ez31/e ®-
�
.| ..
� ■ ' ' - ,
--
.,lift.f- -�
r
ILI
.
. \ ��
■ . magi &m2m
% STREAM FORM
} . qs
a| --•� r ` INTERMITTENT mmgs
INTERMITTENT STREAM qs ■_
. 3I - IPA
\ %
- IR -
INTERMITTENT STREAM q . %0.
�
148 If
r , ir 1/2_ �rt
. 'k 4p
ip
\� opi r'
-_ 4t
, te a _ ` 1p 4r
� �
NP
w� Nom STREAM
FORM kGDEach �dh
___-
le
�%�
� .
OR.� _-
N ®
PP
ivy IF
_-
- .0
0 ƒ� %��_�%_ 40'��� �-- �N.
. 00 ..
FIGURE No CANNON RUN Dawn: Reviewed By:
19 WaG
C b Ry Co., NC oa 3R
STUDY
DATE:
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC. WAIVER
-aERSOFTHE us gg/g
- Ien. rind [e-mail] EXISTING CO-2277 NDmONS sU m
,. .,.
SUBJECT TO u ac VERIFICATION

ice- _ - - _ �' • ,; - Y , wAi
Photo 2: Non -Jurisdictional gap between streams AJS & AJSS
(view downslope).
Cannon Run
WEFGCabarrus Co., NC-8/14/17, 8/2/19
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Photo 3: Intermittent Stream AJS (view downstream).
Cannon Run
WEFGCabarrus Co., NC-8/14/17, 8/2/19
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Photo 4: Non -jurisdictional gap between Stream AJ & culvert
(view downslope).
Cannon Run
WEFGCabarrus Co., INC —8/14/17, 8/2/19
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date:
8/2/19 1 Evaluator: I HAC
Easting:
-80.7317
Project:
Cannon Run: Non -Jurisdictional Swale
Northing:
35.4385
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
11.75
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points
A. Geomorphology
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
2
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
0
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology Subtotal
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
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
16. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Hydrology Subtotal
C. Biology
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
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
0.75
Biology Subtotal
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Ori ins.
(version 4.11)

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date:
8/2/19 1 Evaluator: I HAC
Eastin :
-80.7313
Project:
I Cannon Run: Intermittent Stream AJS
Northing:
35.4389
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
19.0
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points
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
1
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
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
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology Subtotal
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
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
16. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
Hydrology Subtotal
C. Biology
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
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
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Majority of hydrology to stream appears to be from stormwater. Little stream structure/continuity
throughout.
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
(version 4.11)
Ori ins.

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
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 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):
Cannon Run
3. Applicant/owner name:
Charlotte Real Estate Services
5. County:
Cabarrus
7. River basin:
Yadkin-PeeDee
2. Date of evaluation: 8/2/19
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Stream
9. Site number (show on attached map): AJ/AJS/AJSS 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): .5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1.5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
Assessor name/organization: H.Caldwell/WEPG
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Rocky River
35.4345N/-80.7302W
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>- 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑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.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
®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 severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑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).
❑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
❑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
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.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
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.
❑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 ®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 ❑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)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses °, ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F M ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation NC El Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) rM ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑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)
1la. ❑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).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle 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)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ❑Yes ®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:
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.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/am phi pod/crayfish/sh rimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ®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 ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ❑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: 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 ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >- 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®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
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ON ON
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.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Basef low Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑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)
❑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 ®A ❑A
®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
®C ❑C ®C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑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
®A ®A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑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:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑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
❑A ®A Medium to high stem density
®B ❑B Low stem density
❑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.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition - 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 ❑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. ❑Yes ®No Was 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).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >- 230
Notes/Sketch:
Segmented intermittent stream adjacent to sewer line causing flow alteration to stream area. Multiple debris dams causing altered pattern and
overwidening.

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cannon Run Date of Assessment 8/2/19
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
H.Caldwell/WEPG
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
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
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(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
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(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
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Threatened & Endangered Species
Report

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
For: Cannon Run
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney
March 26, 2019
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands-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]
I en. ri n d ner@wet Ian ds -epg. co m

Cannon Run - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The Cannon Run site (+/- 128.5 acres) is located just south of Hwy 73, just
north of Harris Road, and just west of Odell School Road in Cabarrus County,
North Carolina. It can be found on the Kannapolis NC USGS Topographic
Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.4345 N, longitude is 80.7302 W. The topography
is gently to moderately sloped with the elevation ranging from 640 to 700 ft.
(Figure 1). The site is a mosaic of partially rough graded land and wooded
slopes. There are numerous dirt roads and trails lacing the site and it is
disturbed throughout. There is roadside frontage along Hwy 73, Odell School
Road and Harris Road. Two unnamed tributaries to Rocky River flow
southwest through the site.
Figure 1:
i - APPRQ%IMGTE
- PR = B UNDGRV
ST U DY LIWS
,
-
I
R Ill ER
5
V
LCCATION
LaL: 35.4345 ON
SCALE
'
Long: -80.7302 AW
HUC:03040105
ACRES
USGSQUA❑
UPPER RCCKY RIVER
113.85000
Nannapo Iis, NC
FIGURE NO. CANNON RUN
1 CabalrLr Co., NC
*Wuhiw�k�nkdLn,ie�.—nmi
LI5G5 MAP
-SATE FSO—E Us:
E%6TING CONDITU NSSTUOY
[phone] 5 UVL ETTO OSAff bEgUf CAR ON
[7 raven 6y: Revie wed Ey:
NRN LSR
DATE:
9f31is
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Cannon Run - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/cabarrus.html was referenced to
determine the occurrence of Threatened, Endangered and Protected species for
Cabarrus County North Carolina, the results of which are listed below (Table 1).
Maps and aerial photographs were assembled, and the site was investigated
during the week of March 26, 2019
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Cabarrus County
County: Cabarrus, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on March 26, 2019
Federal
Group Name Status Record Status
Vascular Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus Endangered Current
Plants schweinitzii)
Vertebrate Northern Long -Eared Bat (Myotis Threatened Probable/Potential
septentrionalis)
Vertebrate Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Protected Current
Invertebrate Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) Endangered Historic
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Cannon Run - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS:
One plant species with federal protection was the focus of the survey efforts:
• Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), listed as Federally
Endangered, is typically found in open habitats which historically have
been maintained by wildfires and grazing bison and elk herds. Now most
occurrences are limited to roadsides, woodland and field edges, and
utility rights -of -way (ROW).
A total of three animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially
occurring in Cabarrus County:
• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large
bodies of open w ater such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers,
where there are suitable fish populations and tall trees for nesting and
roosting.
• Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally
Endangered, is restricted to cool, clean, well -oxygenated water. Stable,
silt- free stream beds are required for this species. Typically stable areas
occur where the stream banks are well -vegetated with trees and shrubs.
• Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), listed as Federally
Threatened. During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in
colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead
trees. Males and non -reproductive females may also roost in cooler
places, like caves and mines. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in
structures like barns and sheds. Northern long-eared bats spend winter
hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula.
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Cannon Run - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
RESULTS:
The site is a mosaic of partially rough graded land and wooded slopes. There
are numerous dirt roads and trails lacing the site and it is disturbed throughout.
There is roadside frontage along Hwy 73, Odell School Road and Harris Road.
Two unnamed tributaries to Rocky River flow southeastward through the site.
The western and northern sections of the site are disturbed from previously
abandoned rough grading and sediment basin construction, with stockpiles, cut
slopes, open expanses of scrub/shrub cover, thickets, hedgerows, strips of
wooded stream buffers, and disturbed, early successional tree cover.
Abandoned construction materials, concrete pipes and fittings, and trash piles
are scattered on site.
These previously rough graded and disturbed areas are dominated by Sericea
Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) which is commonly planted for soil stabilization,
along with Blackberry (Rubus sp.), Winged Sumac (Rhus copallina), Japanese
Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Catbrier (Smilax sp.). Also present are
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginianum),
Goldenrod (Solidago spp.), Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifoila), Brazilian Vervain
(Verbena brasiliensis), (Pokeweed (Phytolacca americans), Sneezeweed
(Helenium sp.), Ragwort (Packera sp.), Rabbit Tobacco (Gnapthalium
obtusifolium), Indian Hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), and Foxtail (Setaria sp.).
Some areas are more overgrown with small saplings of Red Cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana), Shortleaf Pine (P. echinata), Winged
Elm (Ulmus alata), and Black Cherry (Prunus serotina). Invasive shrub species
present include Russian Olive (Elaeagnus umbellate) and Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum sinense).
The wooded slopes and stream buffers have scattered large tree species present
with Willow Oak (Q. phellos), White Oak (Q. alba), Black Oak (Q. velutina),
Southern Red Oak (Q. falcata), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Virginia
Pine (Pinus virginiana), Short -leaf Pine (P. taeda), Cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), and Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Subcanopy species include
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Redbud (Cercis canadensis), Sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and American Holly (Ilex opaca).
The shrub layer is dominated by Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellate).
Additional shrubs present include Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), Black Haw
(Viburnum prunifolium), Paw Paw (Asimina triloba) and Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum sinense). Vines present are Catbrier (Smilax spp.), Japanese
Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Crossvine (Bignoinia capreolata), Trumpet
Creeper (Campsis radicans), Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
WEPG 5
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Cannon Run - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Results
• All potential habitats for Schweinitz's Sunflower along the roadsides; open
areas; hedgerows; and woods edges were closely examined, and no
plants were found.
• No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles, and there were no sightings
nor were any nesting sites observed.
• The 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
• Comparing this site location to the USFWS Asheville office's website
(http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB in WNC.html) it
appears that the site meets the "exempt" criteria which requires no further
action under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the northern
long eared bat.
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,
#
Lisa R. Gaf ney, Biologist
March 26, 2019
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Cannon Run - 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 45,000 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.

DWR
MOM— of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
la. Name of project:
Cannon Run
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?
Daniel Kuefler
1 b. Primary Contact Email:
[e-mail]
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.4345-80.7302
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Cabarrus
Nearest Body of Water
1c. Primary Contact Phone:
[phone]
Is this project a public transportation project?
r Yes e No
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
I— Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
W Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified bythe Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
* 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r- Individual Permit
29 - Residential Developments
39 - Commercial/Institutional Developments
le. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
r Yes e No
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r- Riparian Buffer Authorization
• Yes r• No
• Yes r: No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
c Yes r No

Acceptance Letter Attachment
ILF Letter_duplicate.pdf 117.02KB
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
c Yes r: No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
o Yes e No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner W Applicant (other than
owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Rocky River Crossing, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
please refer to parcel map attached
2c. Responsible party:
J. Murpy
2d.Address
Street Address
4350 Main Street, Ste 201
Address Line 2
City
State / Province / fd gim
Harrisburg
NC
Postal / Zip Cade
Country
28975
USA
2e. Telephone Number:
2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Mark Swartz
3b. Business Name:
Charlotte Real Estate Development
3c.Address
Street Address
4350 Main Street, #201
Address Line 2
City
State / Province / Region
Harrisburg
NC
Postal / Zip Code
country
28075
USA
3d. Telephone Number: 3e. Fax Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:
da n ie I. kuefle r@wetla nds-e pg. com
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality / town:

Concord
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
please refer to attached parcel map
2b. Property size:
128.5
2c. Project Address
Street Address
NW of intersection of Harris Rd & Odell School Rd
Address Line 2
Cty State / Ftwince / Region
Concord NC
Postal / Zip Code (buntry
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:
Rocky River
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030401050102
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin -Pee Dee
4. Project Description and History
4a. 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 a mosaic of partially rough graded land and wooded slopes. There are numerous dirt roads and trails lacing the site and it is disturbed throughout. There is roadside
frontage along Hwy 73, Odell School Road and Harris Road. Two unnamed tributaries to Rocky River flow southwest through the site. General land use in the vicinity is a mixture
undeveloped land and residential/ commercial developments.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r• Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
USGS _duplicate.pdf 162.56KB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Soils _duplicate.pdf 11.89MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.05
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
6334
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The project consists of one road crossing, grading, fill & sewer installation for a residential development.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Excavation and grading of the site will use standard equipment - excavator, dump trucks, track hoe, etc.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Plans _duplicate.pdf 4.55MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
c Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
An AJD request and Waiver request is included with the Compiled PCN package attached. Portions
of the site were field -verified by Alan Johnson (NCDEQ) on 10/9/19. The northern portion of the site
including the discontinuous stream channel was field -verified by Catherine Janiczak & Scott Jones
(USAGE) on 10/31/18, however a PJD was not requested/issued.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?
r Preliminary r Approved c Not Verified (- Unknown (- N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?

Name (if known): Nic Nelson
Agency/Consultant Company: WEPG
Other:
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
Delineation _duplicate.pdf
6. Future Project Plans
246.79KB
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes e No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed projector related activity?
No.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries r Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2a1 Reason * (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W. *
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition * M
2g. Impact
area*
W1
Fill
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland A
Yes
Corps
0.061
(acres)
W2
Fill
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland PP
Yes
Corps
0.005
(acres)
W3
Fill
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland CCC
Yes
Corps
0.002
(acres)
W4
Fill
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland DDD
Yes
Corps J�_
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000 0.069
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.069
2h. Comments:
The proposed impacts to Wetland DDD are actually 0.0008 ac, but the electronic form does not allow for enough decimal places.
3. Stream Impacts
3a. Reason for impact * (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name*
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
❑
M
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Road CrossingPermanent
Culvert
Stream BBB
Perennial
DWR
5
125
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
g2
Road Crossing
Temporary
Dewatering
Stream BBB
Perennial
DWR
5
40
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
Commercial lot radin
9 9Average
Permanent
Fill lf��_AJS-AJSS
Intermittent
DWR
(feet)
(linear feet)
�
Road / Lot grading
9 9
Permanent
Fill
Stream AAA
Intermittent
DWR
3
50
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S5
Construction Access
Tem ora
P rY
Dewaterin 9
Stream AAA
Intermittent
DWR
3
20
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S6
Sewerline Installation
Tem ora
P rY
Excavation
Stream BB
Perennial
DWR
LAV-�e(leetj
L(�—I-)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0

31. Total permanent stream impacts:
572
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
100
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
672
3j. Comments:
A waiver is requested for impacts to intermittent streams AJ, AJS, & AJSS. These are a series of disconnected intermittent stream segments with a
hydrology primarily driven by flashy overland flow. Impacts to these features (397 If) are unavoidable due to the engineering and design constraints of
the commercial development. Please refer to the cover letter and Waiver Study section enclosed for more details.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Due to the location of the on site streams and wetland, opportunities to avoid these areas were limited. Impacts to site surface waters associated with
the proposed development were limited through site selection, location, design, & location/orientation of the proposed lots and access routes.
Fleadwalls and 2:1 slopes are used throughout the site where practicable to avoid additional impacts to streams and wetlands. The impacts to streams
AJ, AJS, & AJSS are unavoidable to due the constraints imposed by commercial construction requirements (i.e. flat grade & access requirements).
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.
Large headwalls and 2:1 & 3:1 slopes are proposed to keep the road crossing as narrow as possible and avoid the need for additional riprap. A
catchement will direct runoff to the top of stream AAA to maintain hydrology belowthe minimal impact. One temporary open cut for a sewerline
installation will be restored to pre-exsting condition per the attached stream stabilization detail.
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?
r Yes r No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
r DWR W Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
r Mitigation bank W Payment to in -lieu fee r Permittee Responsible
program Mitigation
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
r• Yes r No
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
(linear feet)
572
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(square feet)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
warm
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
49. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4h. Comments
Proposed ratios are 0.5:1 for discontinuous intermittent stream, 1:1 for intermittent stream, and 2:1 for perennial stream impacts.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r: No
If no, explain why:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes e No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes s No

2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater
program?
r• Yes r No
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply:
rJ Local Government F State
Local Government Stormwater Programs
rJ Phase II F NSW F USMP r Water Supply
Please identify which local government stormwater program you are using.
City of Concord
Comments:
Storm water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has not yet been submitted to the City of Concord but will be designed to meet
their criteria.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes e No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (1 SA NCAC 2B .0200)? *
r Yes e No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
r Yes e No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
c Yes r Nor N/A
4b. Describe, in detail, the treatment methods and dispositions (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project. If the wastewater will be treated
at a treatment plant, list the capacity available at that plant.
Wastewater generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via sewer lines.
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?
r Yes e No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes e No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes s No
5f. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
0 Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r: No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r: No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes e No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?*

A threatened/Endangered species assessment was conducted in which no species were identified. Habitat does ebst for the Northern Long Eared Bat
but the project is exempt as noted in the included T&E report.
Consultation Documentation Upload
T&E _duplicate.pdf 839.9KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes e No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an 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 status?*
r Yes e No
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/
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes e No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
https://gis.Gabarruscounty.us/rnycabarrusgis; www.fema.gov
Miscellaneous
Comments
A compiled PCN package is attached, including ORM, cover letter, AJD request materials, waiver request materials, PCN forms, plans, photos, and T&E report.
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Cannon Run PCN 100319 _Compiled.pdf
Signature
*
W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
16.39MB
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:*
Daniel Kuefler
Signature
Date
10/4/2019