20181502 Ver 1_401 Application_20181105

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 -
Prepare file folder
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Cheyney
BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
2. Work Type: Private 7 Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial 11
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
The purpose of the project is to develop the property for single-family housing.
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Mattamy Homes; POC: Mr. Bob Wiggins
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS; POC: Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: SAW -2006-41171
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.361839, -80.814918
East of the Independence Hill Road and Arthur Davis Road intersection
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 02762101, 02762102, 02761168, 02718125, 02718126, 02718185, and 02718103 (partial parcel)
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: UT to Clarks Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Yadkin 03040105
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑� Section 10 & 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 27 & 29
❑ Regional General Permit #
❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
0 Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
To: Mr. David Shaeffer Date: October 31, 2018
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charlotte Satellite Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. Alan Johnson
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury St., 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 27 and 29
Cheyney
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Mr. Johnson,
The Cheyney site is approximately 163 acres in extent and is located east of the Independence Hill
Road and Arthur Davis Road intersection in unincorporated Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(Figures 1 and 2, Attachment A). Mattamy Homes has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
(CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. An executed Agent
Authorization Form is attached (Attachment B).
CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction Notification pursuant to Nationwide Permit No 29 to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for proposed permanent impacts to the jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
associated with developing the subdivision into a single-family development. In addition, the
project proposes draining a on-site pond and restoring the stream at the location of the current
pond, which will be permitted under NWP 27.
The impacts from this project were counted cumulative to the adjoining Meridale subdivision.
Therefore, mitigation is proposed for this project. Since the project will also result in ecological uplift
due to the proposed stream restoration, Mattamy Homes proposes 1:1 ratio to mitigate for these
wetland impacts.
A Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination was submitted to the USACE on April 7,
2018 (SAW -2006-41171) and the on-site features were field verified by Mr. David Shaeffer of the
USACE on June 8, 2018.
A copy of the PCN application is being provided to the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) with a check of $570 for the 401 Water Quality Certification approval fee.

Cheyney
Transmittal Letter
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED:
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Please do not hesitate to contact Aliisa Harjuniemi at 980-259-1222 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS
Project Scientist
Page 2 of 2
`A�
/ Cn
v' ftu
Christine Geist, PWS, CE
Principal Scientist
DESCRIPTION
Attachment A -
Figures 1-7
Attachment B -
Agent Authorization Form
Attachment C -
List of Property Owners and Deed Information
Attachment D -
Permit Drawings
Attachment E -
Stream Restoration Plan and Pond Draining
Attachment F -
Cumulative Impact Analysis for Adjoining Property (Meridale; SAW -2007-01172 )
Attachment G - Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
Attachment H -
NC WAM Form
Attachment I - ILF Acceptance Letter
Please do not hesitate to contact Aliisa Harjuniemi at 980-259-1222 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS
Project Scientist
Page 2 of 2
`A�
/ Cn
v' ftu
Christine Geist, PWS, CE
Principal Scientist

d�pF W A rE�%
flvfil::�,C
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 14
PCN 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:
© Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 and 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
M Yes ❑ 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.
M Yes ❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes © No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes N No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Cheyney
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Multiple, please see the attached list (Attachment C)
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
-
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
-
3e.
City, state, zip:
-
3f.
Telephone no.:
Contact Mr. Bob Wiggins, Mattamy Homes: 704-604-8424
3g.
Fax no.:
N/A
3h.
Email address:
Contact Mr. Bob Wiggins, Mattamy Homes: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent Mattamy Homes
4b. Name:
Mr. Bob Wiggins
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Mattamy Homes
4d. Street address:
2128 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 201
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
4f. Telephone no.:
704-604-8424
4g. Fax no.:
N/A
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c. Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.:
980-259-1222
5f. Fax no.:
N/A
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
02762101, 02762102, 02761168, 02718125, 02718126,
02718185, and 02718103 (partial parcel)
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.361839 Longitude: -80.814918
1 c. Property size:
163 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
UT to Clarks Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Yadkin (HUC 03040105)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The property is approximately 163 acres in extent and is located east of the Independence Hill Road and Arthur Davis Road
intersection in unincorporated Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2).
Current land use consists of forested and agricultural land with a residential house and farming structures. Surrounding land
use consist of single-family subdivision, forested areas, and agricultural land. Interstate 485 is located along the northern
property boundary (Figure 3).
According to the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) USDA-
NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County (Figures 4 and 5) on-site soils consist of ten different soil units. Of the on-site soils,
only Monacan loam is listed the Web Soil Survey database as containing hydric inclusions.
There are several jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located within the property. These waters consist of seven jurisdictional
stream channels (Streams A -G), nineteen jurisdictional wetlands (Wetlands AA-QQ), and four jurisdictional ponds.
There are several old stream crossings located within the Cheyney property. These old crossings were permitted under non -
notifying NWP26 and are further discussed in Section 5b in this PCN.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.457 acre wetland, 1.2 acre pond
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 4,528 linear feet of
perennial stream, 772 If intermittent stream
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to develop the property into a single-family residential subdivision. This project will provide
residential housing for Charlotte, North Carolina to meet the growing demand for housing due to population growth.
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project proposes developing the site for a single-family residential development. Construction of this project will require
one road crossing over stream and two small wetlands and three open trench sewerline crossings. Fill for a road will result in
0.019 acre of permanent impacts to Wetlands AA and BB (W1 and W2) and 38 If permanent impacts to Stream A (S1).
The three open trench sewerline crossings would permanently impact 30 linear feet of stream bank due to rip rap bank
stabilization and temporarily impact 120 linear feet of stream channel (S2 -S7). Additionally, the project proposes draining the
Pond A and restoring Stream E at the location of the current pond. The site plan and impact drawings are included as an
Attachment D. The Pond Draining and Stream Restoration Plan is included as an Attachment E.
Road Crossing (S1, W1 -W2)
The proposed road crossing is necessary to connect the southwestern portion of the subdivision to the rest of the property.
Due to City of Charlotte set back requirements and as the begin of these jurisdictional features fall close to the property
boundary, the grading fill for the proposed road crossing must permanently impact 38 linear feet of Stream A (S7), 0.013 acre
of Wetland AA (W1), and 0.006 acre of Wetland BB (W2). The proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are
minimal and required due to limited space between the rail road set back and existing wetlands.
Open Trench Sewerline Crossings (S2 -S7)
Three open trench sewerline crossings are required for this project as the soils are too shallow at these locations to allow
directional boring methods. Each sewerline crossing will temporarily impact 40 linear feet of stream due to sewerline
installation, temporary fill due to dewatering system, and bank stabilization. Additionally, each crossing will permanently i
10 linear feet due to stabilization with rip rap along the bank, extending below the ordinary high water mark.
All work will be completed in dry and the temporary dewatering system will be removed after the work has been completed.
The pump -around system details are included in Exhibit 7 (Attachment D). The disturbed stream bed will be returned to the
existing grade and the stream banks will be graded to 2:1 slope, matted, and stabilized with seeding and live stakes. The wic
of the rip rap along the stream bank will be limited to 10 linear feet. The bank stabilization details are depicted in Exhibits 7-8
(Attachment D).
Pond Draining and Stream Restoration
The project will include draining Pond A within the Cheyney development site followed by excavation of the earthen dam to
remove the primary outlet structure. UT -Clarks Creek will be restored within the old pond footprint. Stream restoration will be
performed in the dry. The restored stream channel will be constructed as a Rosgen classified B5 channel using log and rock
structures for grade control, building bankfull benches, and providing access to flood prone areas. Streamside and riparian
vegetation will be installed, and the old lake bed will be stabilized by seeding and matting. Stream restoration length will total
624 linear feet. An additional 40 linear feet of bank stabilization is proposed on the lower end of the stream restoration
construction corridor. Due to uncertainties regarding specific characteristics of the pond bed, some field adjustments may be
needed to the stream restoration plan following draining of the lake. Any major changes will be coordinated with the agencies
prior to implementation. Typical heavy equipment will be used in the grading operations (bulldozers, excavators, dump trucks,
graders, etc.). The Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan is found in Attachment E.
Page 4 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑x Unknown
the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this
property/ project including all prior phases in the
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination,
El Preliminary El Final
what type of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other: CWS
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination was submitted to the USACE on April 7, 2018 (SAW -2006-41171). The
on-site features were field verified by Mr. David Shaeffer of the USACE on June 8, 2018. No verification letter has been
received from the USACE as the date of this PCN submittal.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or
❑x Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
The adjoining subdivision, Meridale, resulted in approximately 0.087 acre of permanent wetland impacts (SAW -2007-01172).
These impacts are counted cumulatively with this permit. The same permit authorized also a permanent stream impact
associated with a road crossing, but a site inspection revealed that a bottomless culvert was installed instead of a previously
permitted box culvert, resulting in no permanent impacts to jurisdictional stream channels. The cumulative impact analysis, old
permit verification with impact figures, and pictures of the bottomless culvert for the Meridale site are included as an
Attachment F.
Additionally, there are nine old stream crossings located within the Cheyney property. As these crossings were put in place
prior to 2000 and the acreage of the stream impacts was approximately 0.03 acre (below the one acre notification threshold),
they were permitted under non -notifying NWP26.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
® Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, explain.
The Cheyney project consist of four phases as depicted in the overview map. All four phases are included to this permit
application. This project will not result in additional phases in foreseeable future.
The Cheyney is not another phase to the adjoining Meridale project. The Meridale was originally developed by different
developer and the Cheyney site has independent utilities and access. However, as these two subdivisions are both currently
owned by Mattamy Homes and share connecting road, the impacts are treated cumulatively.
Page 5 of 14
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):
N Wetlands N Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers N Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f. Area
of
impact
(acres)
W1
p
Fill
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.013
W2
p
Fill
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.006
W3
_
W4
W5
W6
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.019
2h. Comments:
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetland total 0.019 acre.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream
name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
P
Fill
Stream A
PER
Corps
3
38
S2
P
Bank Stabilization
Stream A
PER
Corps
5
10
S3
T
Open Trench Sewer Crossing
Stream A
PER
Corps
5
40
S4
P
Bank Stabilization
Stream G
INT
Corps
3
10
S5
T
Open Trench Sewer Crossing
Stream G
INT
Corps
3
40
S6
P
Bank Stabilization
Stream F
INT
Corps
3
10
S7
T
Open Trench Sewer Crossing
Stream F
INT
Corps
3
40
S8
T
Bank Stabilization
Stream E
PER
Corps
5
40
S9
T
Dewatering
Stream E
PER
Corps
5
40
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
268
Page 6 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

3i. Comments:
Proposed permanent stream impacts total 68 If.
Proposed loss of stream channel total 38 If
Proposed temporary stream impacts total 200 If
S8 — no work in the stream channel, restricted to the stream bank entirely. S9 — dewatering measures used in the pond removal
and stream restoration construction.
Page 7 of 14
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 individually 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
P
Pond A
Drainage
Pond
1.1
02
_
Choose One
Choose
03
_
Choose One
Choose
04
_
Choose One
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
1.1
4g. Comments: 1.1 -acres of permanent open water impacts, with no permanent loss of waters associated with the impacts since
a stream restoration project will be completed within the pond footprint.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose One
P2
Choose One
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number-
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
_
Yes/No
B2
_
Yes/No
133
_
Yes/No
B4
_
Yes/No
B5
_
Yes/No
B6
_
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 8 of 14
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

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.
To avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the Cheyney site was delineated prior to finalizing the site
plan. Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable while still
meeting the project goals. The proposed permanent impacts associated with this project are minimal and draining the pond in
order to restore the stream will provide ecological uplift.
The number of open trench sewerline crossings is limited to three and jack -and -bore crossings were utilized whenever possible.
The open trench crossings are in an area where the soil is too shallow to allow directional boring methods.
The proposed development will avoid most on-site jurisdictional waters. However, a proposed 0.019 acre permanent wetland
impact and 38 linear feet permanent stream impacts are required to provide street connectivity and comply with City of Charlotte
ordinances. Based on the City of Charlotte set back requirements and required road network connectivity, avoiding the impacts
to wetlands would have adverse impacts on the site layout.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters. Silt fence will be
installed around the jurisdictional features, outside of the avoided wetlands, streams and ponds. Construction activities and
impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply with all conditions of Nationwide Permit Nos. 27 and 29.
All work will be completed in dry and the temporary dewatering system will be removed after the work has been completed.
The disturbed stream bed will be returned to existing grade and the stream banks will be graded to 2:1 slope, matted, and
stabilized with seeding and live stakes. No rip rap will be placed in the streambed other than along the banks below the
ordinary high watermark for the sewerline crossings. The width of the rip rap along the stream bank will be limited to 10 linear
feet.
The proposed sewerline construction corridors are wider than 40 ft. Installing the sewerline per the specifications and the
required by-pass pumping will require a wider corridor. However, the proposed impacts for each of the crossings are limited to
50 If.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ M Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
® Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose One
Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose One
Quantity:
Quantity:
Type: Choose One
Page 9 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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:
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose One
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.106 acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments: Mitigation is proposed at 1:1 ratio. The NC WAM form is included as an attachment H.
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6.
Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a.
Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ❑x No
6b.
If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone
1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g.
If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h.
Comments:
Page 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
The site is not adjacent to protected NC Riparian Buffers.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
>24 %
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
The City of Charlotte will be reviewing the stormwater plan. The preliminary location of the Stormwater Control Measures
(SCM) are depicted in the overall plan vie (Attachment D). Due to buffer requirements along the existing streams and
wetlands,
the SCM outlets will drain through the buffers as overland flow prior to reaching
the existing streams or wetlands.
A copy of the stomwater plan will be provided to NCDEQ per request once approved by the City of Charlotte.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Charlotte
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑x Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply):
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes M 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 ❑ 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 11 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in cumulative impacts to jurisdictional waters in foreseeable future.
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.
Sewerlines will be connected to an existing off-site municipal sewerline in the southeastern property corner.
On-site
sewage will be treated off site at a Charlotte treatment plant.
Page 12 of 14
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 ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes © 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?
To determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially occurring within the project vicinity, and prior to
conducting the on-site field investigation, CWS consulted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and
Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina online database for Mecklenburg County. In addition,
CWS performed a data review using the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on April 18, 2018 to
determine if any record occurrences of federally -listed, candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat were
located within the project limits. The results of the desktop review and habitat assessment are included in the Protected Species
Habitat Assessment Report (Attachment G).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes © No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on October 12, 2018 to determine the
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. CWS also
consulted the SHPO online GIS service and Charlotte -Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission webpage. Both searches
indicated there are no known historical structures, buildings, sites, or districts existing within the project limits. No response
has been received from the SHPO by the date of this permit application submittal.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA require-me-pts.-
equire-me-pts:.No
.Noaboveground fill is proposed within FEMA floodplain.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No. 3710455900K
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

As,, Ae��
Ms. Aliisa Harjuniemi 10.31.18
Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name signature is valid only if an authorization letter Date
from the applicant is provided.)
Page 14 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A:
Figures 1-7
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103

State Location Extc
Kentuck
TeTrressee
South Carolina
Georgia
•f C
?1 e
0.
Rry }
ht Rd
.7
x
�p,d
C reek
lure
9e Ne
a
d � �
'e4 , r,.3
North
LafaE ALall otth
,Z,0 a Lake Cr
�i" ilidge
a
$ n
_R
'L a
Narlh V
Oehler C
Nalu ree
Preserve
co'ci ltd
Skybrook I
Ste"') Pra•u} C'."A. _ Goff Club f
_ .. r
U
b� Gt
r' 3 1
o
4
vt Fed' Eastfield
Reg la nal
� Park
t
U l
4 '
7
Jn Hie hhI ni
d C rof- k
6o If Ckjb
Q,S
d
e
XV
Yf
A•
ip
Bj
¢ d
l�falia Ir!
S s fi0r
o Oa
C lee k
High Mallard
y
C Leek
p
O'
Regional Park
q a
r �
'+a Cr,.
og Tradilnn
Goff
0 Course a
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)\ArcGIS\Figure1_Vicinity.mxd
Yf
A•
ip
Bj
�
T
c
'+a Cr,.
a
m
G�
Hornet s Ne r
Regnnai Park
H
Legend
{a
SURd
G',5
Project Limits (163 ac.)
kyr
Nevin
1%,
ark
5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Feet
•. REFERENCE: BACKGROUND VICINITY MAP PROVIDED BY ESRI, 2018.
Pil--tT+mralk
tire
SCALE:
1 inch = 5,000 feet
DATE:
10/9/2018
Vicinity Map
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
1
2018-0103
MLS
Cheyney
Of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
CAR El L l N A
Mecklenburg County
35.361947, -80.815124
CAG
WETLAND SERVICES
Charlotte, North Carolina
7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)\ArcGIS\Figure1_Vicinity.mxd

G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)\ArcGIS\Figure2_USGS.mxd
Legend
_
CD ma—
Project Limits (163 ac.)
:
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): DERITA, NC AND CORNELIUS, NC (2017).
SCALE:DATE:
1 inch = 2,000 feet
10/9/2018
USGS Topographic Map
FIGURE NO.
2
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
Cheyney
Mecklenburg County
2018-0103
MLS
C A R❑ Ll N A
Of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
35.361947, -80.815124
CAG
WETLAND SERVICES
Charlotte, North Carolina
7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)\ArcGIS\Figure2_USGS.mxd

GATeam Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)WrcGIS\Figure3_Aerial.mxd

G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (N WP 29)WrCGIS\Figure4_CurrentSoils.mxd
Ce
VaD aB CeD
IrA
eB2 PaE
HeB CeD2
CeD2
PaE
eD2 t
CeD2
CeD
HeB
He
V MO
Ce
_ eD2
eB2
El
HeB
aD
CeD2
\
CeD2
e132
EnB
VaD
HeB
MeB
MO N
Wk1
nD
Va
P
IrB /
IrB
ApD
MeD
CeD2 /
DaB
\
t
B2ll
eB
n6
CeD2
MeD
-
CeB2
--y MeB
MeB
eB
MO
/ EnB
MeD EnB'
CeD
PaE
IrB
CeB2
CeB2
eD2
EnB
MO MeD
1
CeD2
'
En
CeB2
IrB
Ce
CeB
MeB
PaE
MeD
EnB
CeD2
D2
EnB
Ce62
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
No,
12.7
CeD2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
No
2.7
Legend
Dab
Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
No
7.2
En6Enonadel
IrB
sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Iredellfinesandyloam,ito8percentslopes
No
No
3.3
0 PB
Project Limits
MeB
Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
No
41 HeB
(163
ac.)
MeD
Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
No
23.2 n
Mo
Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Yes
6.8
Roads
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
No
1 5
W
Water
No
0.8
WkD
Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
No
0.7
D
1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
REFERENCE:
USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, DATED 2017. B
EnB
WkD
SCALE:
1 inch
= 1,000 feet
DATE: 10/9/2018
USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey
of Mecklenburg County
FIGURE NO.
4
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
Cheyney
Mecklenburg County
2018-0103
DJZ
CAROLINA
�f
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
35.361947, -80.815124
CAG
WETLAND SF lies
Charlotte, North Carolina
7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (N WP 29)WrCGIS\Figure4_CurrentSoils.mxd

1-I@B r paE r `jt- e Me8
vn8 Va6 It" a ' GeA2
F' aF Z 01111 . i.":I.'
F CeR2 VaE7 _ e0 L]p2 M-8
Fir$ i:.et
aG J CeD2 - = t,
Cef32 f Yap eH7
C
"rr vaB ^fja Ir
vaG ! I.A
EnD
I-he?l Ce82 •- +r8
dL I
ir8 F n{3 H98
Val
u •H �•,-� e0
MeD U!
it -
H. fi
VTR v Avl3 1008 3r f4v6 Mc . CcB2
�R t En
En8
PaE d cel)
C WkU �
McC1 ��*! CaD2� M
k.�� Irf3 t-• eC
F, Arthur Davis Road
e C�, CeD2 Pat � 4 10. i
'..••F+= Mad M`-'f� � M Cep2
CeR,'.
P C EnB E
m Ma$
U;
E1�8
WkD � CC-02�'
U
C. 4� 15)
�ko E Old Statesville Road Men cep?
1
COD! 'l MO .no CeR7 P F m
:r� r.•fi7 1 �. �
MQB DaP
�µ�`
.� MeD M('Li f•aL•
e`9 O 5 P t jzU
Eng-
CeA2
Nom? n eD� 7 F, n D
ef]2
Pa£ WkF. f Ceb?
C
et5f
Ce82 O,+FS � L- C PaE ire L'eRi
re02 -
C'R3 u'
'� CtBi m EItB `
Ce$2 - - VAR �0 Vafi
r,,•Ei' u ❑
E'nF� I
"_R u,•
Er: M1,13. h.4Q Et H013F
t !t EnR
F S
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No• 12.7 W
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 2.7
DaB Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 7.2
EnB Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No
IrB Iredell fine sandy loam, 1 to_8 percent slopes No 0
MOB Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 41 •+ E n$
MeDMecklenburg fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 23.2 ll Legend
MO Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Yes 6.8
PaE Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes No B
W Water No o.a Project Limits (163 ac.)
WkD Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 0.7
I w EVA.] 1117-4- M- W11111911111117 L-4 0 60--� Totals for Area rr Moou
. �� 0 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, SHEET 4, DATED 1976.
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 10/9/2018 �+ USDA-NRCS HIStOrIC Soil
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: Survey of Mecklenburg County 5
2018-0103 MLS Cheyney
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: of
CA R 13L I ISI A Mecklenburg County
35.361947, -80.815124 CAG WETLAND sEl VIr-ES Charlotte, North Carolina 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)WrcGIS\Figure5_HistodcSoils.mxd

G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)WrcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mxd
m
OQF
eP
'co
aAsCtiafrmeetaeayn
e
�o
Or
0
0�0
tpS
t, 0
Leda
Wyy
m
We Wy
Dr
F
�p
�
ye��oAA
Hu ks Rd
�e
o Golden Pond Dr
px0n
Roads
0
m`
Xer
-485 Outer HY
National Wetlands Inventory
`o
U
(_ a
® Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Q`'
�m
�oZ-be
ft Haven Dr
G\en r
pm
o`
y�
Freshwater Pond
-a
Ot
�\5
ah\te
a
Addingham
tag r
1,000 5OO O 1, 000 Feet
m o
a
Map\e Rd
Hedge
BACKGROUND LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2017.
o
MaP\e NJ
a
—
° N.
N L
B\aok
a
�
m
Rd
National Wetlands Inventory
'o
AWn
\ten 5TO
<
DRAWN BY:
6
2018-0103
MLS
Gross\
Cheyney
Of
Mer\da\e
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)WrcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mxd
m
OQF
e
aAsCtiafrmeetaeayn
Or
illLn
tpS
t, 0
ary PoOn
d78ranthurst
Wyy
Legend
We Wy
Dr
F
Project Limits (163 ac.)
Hu ks Rd
Roads
0
National Wetlands Inventory
`o
U
® Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Q`'
�m
Cr
ft Haven Dr
o`
Freshwater Pond
REFERENCE: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY DATA PROIVDED BY UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR NORTH CAROLINA, ACCESSED 2018.
1,000 5OO O 1, 000 Feet
BACKGROUND LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2017.
SCALE:DATE:
1 inch = 1,000 feet
10/9/2018
National Wetlands Inventory
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
6
2018-0103
MLS
Cheyney
Of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
CAROLINA
Mecklenburg County
35.361947, -80.815124
CAG
WETLAND sFRVlt;t-5
Charlotte, North Carolina
7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)WrcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mxd

f S P1=-� Potential Wetland Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US Water of the US
Wetland EE: 0.01 ac. Jursidictional Pond A
1.1 ac. (not flagged in field) ,
o _ Potential Wetland
Waters of the US
�. Wetland ZZ: 0.004 ac.
DP16 Potential Wetland
Water of the US
DP2 . Wetland CC: 0.01 ac.
Potential Wetland
Water of the US
Wetland BB: 0.01 ac.
Potential Wetland
I IL
Water of the US
Potential Wetland
Wetland AA: 0.01 ac.
Waters of the US
1 inch = 100 feet
Wetland DD: 0.004 ac.
S CP2
Ty DP5-------
D P 15 ♦ S
S
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Intermittent Stream D ��-
41 If
1
'VIII f
�I
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Perennial Stream A: 1,176 If /� SCP5
I
C/ovor
Potential Non -wetland
Fastii Water of the US
�tdStatlon0r Intermittent Stream B
17 If
6: S
1 inch = 50 feet
t1ano
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2018
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED,
AND MAPPED USING A SUB -FOOT GPS UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON APRIL 10 AND 11, 2018. JURISDICTIONAL
FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
SCP3
Match to Figure 7a - -- ,
------ E l
(Figure 7a for length
and flow information)
- Potential Wetland
Water of the US
Wetland II: 0.01 ac.
Potential Wetland
Water of the US V DP 120
Wetland FF: 0.01 ac.
r
' Potential Wetland
Water of the US
►� Wetland RR: 0.01 ac.
DTII Potential Wetland
Water of the US
PP: 0.01 ac.
s
DP7 -
= Potential Wetland
Water of the US
Potential Wetland Wetland HH: 0.05 ac.
Water of the US
Wetland GG: 0.05 ac.
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Perennial Stream C
2,190 If vr
i v \
A S CP 12
Stream C
�, Spring A
Potential Non -wetland
Water of the US
Intermittent Stream G
104 If
11
Legend
Q Project Limits (162.7 ac.)
Perennial Stream
- - - Intermittent Stream
® Forested Wetlands
Herbaceous Wetlands
Jurisdictional Pond
w— Pipe
Roads
Parcels
N Photo Location and Direction
_ • SCP Stream Classification Point
ODP Data Point
Indicates Flow
200 100 0 200 Feet
0
0 0 U
o } m
m o
N
O CO
0
N ZO
II �06 76
N
Ly
U 'o p
ui.E a N 5
J � O
U)) U U
FIGURE NO.
7

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT B:
Agent Authorization Form
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Bob Wiggins, representing Mattamy Homes, hereby certify that I have authorized Aliisa
Haduniemi of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary
to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for wetlands determination /
permitting and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Mecklenburg County
Owner/Representative Name
Owner/Representative
Parcel IDs
Address
02762101, 02762102,
02761168, 02718125,
Mattamy Homes;
2127 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 201
02718126, 02718185,
POC: Bob Wiggins
Charlotte, NC 28273
and 02718103 (partial)
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.
Authoriz ignature
Date
Z4� -IAV4-�
Agent's signature
Date
10-24-2018
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign
all future application correspondence.

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT C:
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
List of Property Owners and Deed Information

Table 1. Owners Table
Parcel Number
Owner
Mailing Address
02762101, and 02762102
John Maxwell and Catherine
Maxwell
3141 Butter Churn Ln,
Matthews, NC 28105
02761168
JWJW Investments LLC
C/O: Jeff Watson
1310 S Tryon St, Suite 104,
Charlotte, NC 28203
02718125, 02718126,
02718185, 02718103(partial)
Rose Davis
13121 Mt. Holly-Huntersville
Rd, Mt. Holly, NC 28078

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
02718103 102718103
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
5.01 AC
Fire District
HUNTERSVILLE RURAL
Special District
FIRE SERVICE A
Account Type
INDIVIDUAL
Municipality
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY -UNINCORPORATED
Property Use
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
04/27/2018
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
ROSE K DAVIS
10200 ARTHUR DAVIS RD
HUNTERSVILLE NC 28078
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
I Sale Date
I Sale Price
954-122
01/01/1975
1$0.00
Site Location
FEMA Panel#
ETJ Area
Charlotte
Charlotte Historic District
No
Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area
No
Census Tract #
55.03
Post Construction District
Zoning Jurisdiction Charlotte
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map. District I Yadkin Southeast Catawba
Water Quality Buffer
Stream Watershed Districts
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer No Stream Watershed Name MALLARD
FEMA and Community Floodplain
FEMA Panel#
3710455900J
FEMA Panel Date
03/02/2009
FEMA Flood Zone
OUT:VIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO
VERIFY
Community Flood
Zone
OUT:VIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN
TO VERIFY
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel
10200 ARTHUR DAVIS RD UNINC
10318 ARTHUR DAVIS RD UNINC
Built -Upon Area Restriction
Allowed Built -Upon Area 0.00 sq ft
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 112

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed: 04/27/2018
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 212

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
02718125 102718125
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
54.04 AC
Fire District
HUNTERSVILLE RURAL
Special District
FIRE SERVICE A
Account Type
INDIVIDUAL
Municipality
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY -UNINCORPORATED
Property Use
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - RURAL
ACREAGE
Zoning
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map.
Water Quality Buffer
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer I Yes
FEMA and Community Floodplain
FEMA Panel#
3710455900J
FEMA Panel Date
03/02/2009
FEMA Flood Zone
OUT:VIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO
VERIFY
Community Flood
Zone
OUT:VIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN
TO VERIFY
04/27/2018
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
ROSE K DAVIS
13121 MT
06/13/2016
HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE RD
06/18/2009 $0.00
MT HOLLY NC 28078
ROSE K DAVIS TRUSTEE OF
13121 MT
THE ALFRED A DAVIS
HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE RD
REVOCABLE TRUST
MT HOLLY NC 28078
Site Location
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
Sale Date Sale Price
30900-557
06/13/2016
24845-302
06/18/2009 $0.00
22934-480
10/16/2007
22503-619
07/10/2007 $0.00
Site Location
ETJ Area
Charlotte
Charlotte Historic District
No
Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area
No
Census Tract #
155.03
Post Construction District
Jurisdiction Charlotte
District Yadkin Southeast Catawba
Stream Watershed Districts
Stream Watershed Name I MALLARD
Built -Upon Area Restriction
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel Allowed Built -Upon Area 0.00 sq ft
10230 ARTHUR DAVIS RD UNINC
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
02718126 102718126
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
21.29 AC
Fire District
HUNTERSVILLE RURAL
Special District
FIRE SERVICE A
Account Type
INDIVIDUAL
Municipality
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY -UNINCORPORATED
Property Use
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - RURAL
ACREAGE
04/27/2018
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
ROSE K DAVIS
13121 MT
06/13/2016
HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE RD
10/16/2007
MT HOLLY NC 28078
ROSE K DAVIS TRUSTEE OF
13121 MT
THE ALFRED A DAVIS
HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE RD
REVOCABLE TRUST
MT HOLLY NC 28078
Site Location
Zoning Charlotte Historic District I No
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map. Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area I No
Water Quality Buffer Post Construction District
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer I Yes
Stream Watershed Districts
FEMA and Community Floodplain Stream Watershed Name I NA
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
Sale Date Sale Price
30900-557
06/13/2016
22934-485
10/16/2007
22503-619
07/10/2007 $0.00
Site Location
Zoning Charlotte Historic District I No
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map. Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area I No
Water Quality Buffer Post Construction District
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer I Yes
Stream Watershed Districts
FEMA and Community Floodplain Stream Watershed Name I NA
FEMA Flood Zone
OUT:VIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO
VERIFY
Community Flood
OUT:VIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN
Zone
TO VERIFY
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel
ARTHUR DAVIS RD UNINC
Built -Upon Area Restriction
Allowed Built -Upon Area 1 0.00 sq ft
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
02718185 102718185
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
18.25 AC
Fire District
HUNTERSVILLE RURAL
Special District
FIRE SERVICE A
Account Type
INDIVIDUAL
Municipality
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY -UNINCORPORATED
Property Use
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - RURAL
ACREAGE
04/27/2018
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
ROSE K DAVIS
13121 MT
06/13/2016
HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE RD
06/18/2009 $0.00
MT HOLLY NC 28078
ROSE K DAVIS TRUSTEE OF
13121 MT
THE ALFRED A DAVIS
HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE RD
REVOCABLE TRUST
MT HOLLY NC 28078
Site Location
Zoning Charlotte Historic District I No
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map. Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area I No
Water Quality Buffer Post Construction District
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer I Yes
Stream Watershed Districts
FEMA and Community Floodplain Stream Watershed Name I NA
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
Sale Date Sale Price
30900-557
06/13/2016
24845-308
06/18/2009 $0.00
22503-619
07/10/2007 $0.00
Site Location
Zoning Charlotte Historic District I No
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map. Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area I No
Water Quality Buffer Post Construction District
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer I Yes
Stream Watershed Districts
FEMA and Community Floodplain Stream Watershed Name I NA
FEMA Flood Zone
OUT:VIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO
VERIFY
Community Flood
OUT:VIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN
Zone
TO VERIFY
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel
ARTHUR DAVIS RD UNINC
Built -Upon Area Restriction
Allowed Built -Upon Area 1 0.00 sq ft
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
02761168 102761168
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
14.29 AC
Fire District
HUNTERSVILLE RURAL
Special District
FIRE SERVICE A
Account Type
NC CORP
Municipality
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY -UNINCORPORATED
Property Use
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - RURAL
ACREAGE
04/27/2018
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
JWJW INVESTMENTS LLC
1310 S TRYON ST STE 104
CHARLOTTE NC 28203
Site Location
Charlotte Historic District I No
Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area I No
Post Construction District
Zoning Stream Watershed Districts
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map. Stream Watershed Name NA
Water Quality Buffer Built -Upon Area Restriction
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer Yes Allowed Built -Upon Area 0.00 sq ft
FEMA and Community Floodplain
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
Sale Date Sale Price
32430-310
01/29/2018
28796-149
10/29/2013 $47,000.00
18279-333
01/25/2005 $0.00
Site Location
Charlotte Historic District I No
Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area I No
Post Construction District
Zoning Stream Watershed Districts
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map. Stream Watershed Name NA
Water Quality Buffer Built -Upon Area Restriction
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer Yes Allowed Built -Upon Area 0.00 sq ft
FEMA and Community Floodplain
FEMA Flood Zone
OUT:VIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO
VERIFY
Community Flood
OUT:VIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN
Zone
TO VERIFY
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel
�EASTFIELD RD UNINC
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
02762101 102762101
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
49 AC
Fire District
HUNTERSVILLE RURAL
Special District
FIRE SERVICE A
Account Type
INDIVIDUAL
Municipality
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY -UNINCORPORATED
Property Use
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - RURAL
ACREAGE
Zoning
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map.
Water Quality Buffer
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer I Yes
FEMA and Community Floodplain
FEMA Flood Zone
OUT:VIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO
RICHARD BENJAMIN FEWEL
VERIFY
Community Flood
OUT:VIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN
Zone
TO VERIFY
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel
INDEPENDENCE HILL RD UNINC
Site Location
Charlotte Historic District No
Charlotte 6/30/2011 Annexation Area No
04/27/2018
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
RICHARD BENJAMIN FEWEL
C/O JOHN MAXWELL 3141
23341-758
BUTTER CHURN LN
$0.00
MATTHEWS NC 28105
CATHERINE JANE MAXWELL
C/O JOHN MAXWELL 3141
04634-337
BUTTER CHURN LN
$0.00
MATTHEWS NC 28105
DORIS MOORE MAXWELL
C/O JOHN MAXWELL 3141
BUTTER CHURN LN
MATTHEWS NC 28105
EDISON KIMBLE TST
00000
MAXWELL
JOHN K MAXWELL
00000
OLIVER KIMBLE TST
00000
MAXWELL
SANDRA R MAXWELL
00000
THERESIA H MAXWELL
00000
THOMAS M MAXWELL
00000
ALEXANDER TRUST
00000
MAXWELL IAN
Post Construction District
Stream Watershed Districts
Stream Watershed Name I NA
Built -Upon Area Restriction
Allowed Built -Upon Area 0.00 sq ft
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
Sale Date
Sale Price
23341-758
02/01/2008
$0.00
14185-592
10/04/2002
04634-337
03/01/1983
$0.00
Post Construction District
Stream Watershed Districts
Stream Watershed Name I NA
Built -Upon Area Restriction
Allowed Built -Upon Area 0.00 sq ft
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 1/1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed
Identity
Parcel ID GIS ID
02762102 102762102
Property Characteristics
Legal desc
NA
Land Area
0.97 AC
Fire District
HUNTERSVILLE RURAL
Special District
FIRE SERVICE A
Account Type
INDIVIDUAL
Municipality
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY -UNINCORPORATED
Property Use
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - RURAL
ACREAGE
Zoning
Contact appropriate Planning Department or see Map.
Water Quality Buffer
Parcel Inside Water Quality Buffer I No
FEMA and Community Floodplain
FEMA Panel#
3710455900J
FEMA Panel Date
03/02/2009
FEMA Flood Zone
OUT:VIEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN TO
VERIFY
Community Flood
Zone
OUT:VIEW COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN
TO VERIFY
Situs Addresses Tied to Parcel
10620 INDEPENDENCE HILL RD UNINC
04/27/2018
Ownership
Owner Name
Mailing Address
RICHARD BENJAMIN FEWEL
3141 BUTTER CHURN LN
02/01/2008 $0.00
%JOHN MAXWELL
10/04/2002
MATTHEWS NC 28105
CATHERINE JANE MAXWELL
3141 BUTTER CHURN LN
%JOHN MAXWELL
MATTHEWS NC 28105
DORIS MOORE MAXWELL
3141 BUTTER CHURN LN
%JOHN MAXWELL
MATTHEWS NC 28105
EDISON KIMBLE TST
00000
MAXWELL
IAN ALEXANDER TST
00000
MAXWELL
JOHN K MAXWELL
00000
OLIVER KIMBLE TST
00000
MAXWELL
SANDRA R MAXWELL
00000
THERESIA H MAXWELL
00000
THOMAS M MAXWELL
00000
Site Location
ETJ Area I Charlotte
(�hnri„++o u c+r it n c+rte+ I nir,
Deed Reference(s) and Sale Price
Deed
Sale Date Sale Price
23341-758
02/01/2008 $0.00
14185-592
10/04/2002
01444-048
01/01/1975 $0.00
Site Location
ETJ Area I Charlotte
(�hnri„++o u c+r it n c+rte+ I nir,

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina
POLARIS 3G PARCEL OWNERSHIP AND GIS SUMMARY
Date Printed: 04/27/2018
06/16/2000 from Mecklenburg County
This map or report is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps,
surveys, planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map or report are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary
information sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the
information contained herein.
Page 212

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT D:
Permit Drawings
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY. NOTES: -
x= �2
1. WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION SHOWN PER "WETLAND SURVEY
OF MERIDALE-MAXWELL" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018. w
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA WETLAND
INTERSTATE I-485 SERVICES (CWS) ON "FLAG MAP NORTH AND SOUTH" DATED 4/25/2018.
INTERSTATE 1-485 PUBLIC R/W WIDTH VARIES Con
INTERSTATE 1-485 PUBLIC R/W WIDTH VARIES NCDOT PROJ# R-224M do R2248E
PUBLIC R/W WIDTH VARIES NCDOT PROJ# R-2248D & R224BE DB 28796 PG 140 3. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN PER "TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF:
NCDOT PROj# R-2248D & R2248E DB 18282 PG 254 (CONTROLLED ACCES) MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8± ACRES" BY ESP
DB 18282 PG 254 DB 29173 PG 326 (EXCEPTION /251
DB 29173 PG 326 = (CONTROLLED ACCES) y ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
(CONTROLLED ACCES)
1 AMBER RIDGE HOMEOWNERS p
ASSOCIATION, INC, o
DB 11008 PG 594
COS, MB 30 PG 635
TAX# 027-61-167 Z o Q
LL N U
,\ LU Of
K N Zan LU 0
m
2 m DO U
FUTURE z N
FUTURE PHASE 2 p PROP. BMP o Llj
a z
�OGp PHASE 3 (LAYOUT SUBJECT (LOCATION p ¢ a
Q� p / TO CHANGE) SUBJECT TO
(�(. 6 (LAYOUT SUBJECT Or
\Q�v--*-A � . / TO CHANGE) CHANGE) U
H
w
w
Q
= 4a
x
0<x
Lj
r S6-S7 U
V)O�0 1
PROP. TEMPORARY IMPACT
)TO STREAM F\ OWN NPM
� \l G
LL (SEE PLAN AND SECTION
p a oz ® t VIEWS FOR DETAILS) �RBVC RAW
® ✓ y0 EXIST.
s' FUTURE RIDALEll
m
W1-W2 S1 I ® At,�� PHASE 1 Proposed Pond DIVISION
f `
\v (LAYOUT SUBJECT g
Drainin and Stream W
PROP. PERMANENT I ® � QZ\ � TO CHANGE)
IMPACT TO \ � Restoration (See
WETLANDS AA 8, BB no V
AND STREAM A (SEE �® C\� ��/ PROP. BMP Attachment E) A Q
PLAN AND SECTION /(�1�1(� .� (LOCATION 5 2 o Z
VIEWS FOR DETAILS) ( ®II IF�—I I \C�\' SUBJECT TO D m � Q
PROP. BMP S CHANGE) z — J
(LOCATION SUBJECT ��
TO CHAvGE) o z Q J
w
l rrrri o Z H Lu
U to W
VIP
�O o PROP. BMP
�yC (LOCATION SUBJECT MP \� 6 Z
�2P. �) i PROTEMPORARY IMPACTS
TO CHANGE) Q z
f _ TO STREAMS C AND G J o
FUTURE RwE (SEE PLAN AND SECTION F
s+ / Ry VIEWS FOR DETAILS) W
LYOHASBECT SPR�No P81cR/W GRAPHIC SCALE 0
0
U
J TO�NGE) Z
400' 0 200' 400' 800' 1600'
�� I
IN FEET) Q
-,
i 1 INCH = 400 FT. m
= o
Li
N/F
PHIL M. CANDY w
/REBECCA J. G NDY 01
800
TA # 027 18 124 L.I..I
TAXA 027-18-124 a
01

NOTES:
1. WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION SHOWN PER "WETLAND SURVEY
OF MERIDALE-MAXWELL" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA WETLAND
SERVICES (CWS) ON "FLAG MAP NORTH AND SOUTH" DATED 4/25/2018.
3. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN PER "TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF:
MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8± ACRES" BY ESP
ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
FUTURE CHEYNEY :
SUBDIVISION \ \ L '
(LAYOUT SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
6)
EXIST.
Wl-Wetland AA WETLAND 815'
- 0.013 acre permanent (n'P')
L —
impact (fill) B1
FUTURE STORM \ \873 \\ \\ 81% v J
DRAINAGE SYSTEM
(LAYOUT SUBJECT PROP. PERMANENT
TO CHANGE) IMPACT, WETLAND L
10 AA (573 SF) \ 1\
FUTURE SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEM
FUTURE EDGE OF S �� \ 813 / \ / ���\ (LAYOUT SUBJECT
PAVEMENT r `P,
I TO CHANGE)
813 \
FUTURE – T ` T`
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK Co � I � Cn �W �
FUTURE I I— S1 - Stream A /
RIGHT OF _ — —
WAY 815 g14- 1 - 381fpermanent 816 s�
812 810 impact (fill)
BOB -
PROP. PERMANENT
OB-
PROP.PERMANENT PROP. PERMANENT
IMPACT, INTERMITTENT
IMPACT, WETLAND BB � I
STREAM A (38 LF) \fid, (282 SF) I
.A7 EXIST.
W2 -Wetland BB _ WETLAND
(TYPO
0.006 acre
permanent impact I ,moo EXIST. 50' FUTURE CHEYNEY
(fill) o�J l/ oll I PCCO BUFFER SUBDIVISION
>/ i ' / (LAYOUT SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
\ >
EXIST. 10'
WETLAND
BUFFER (TYP.) EXIST. TOP EXIST.
OF BANK INTERMITTENT 40'
STREAM A I
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
LEGEND
EXIST. MINOR CONTOUR
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
Q"
CJS
W
N O Q
z N U
LL
Nz }
W ?> m
Co
:D Co O U
z 0 U
H U < m
a
Lu ui z
W J
Q U
U
z
Lu
0
J
a
U
EXIST. WETLANDS
Lu
EXIST. WETLANDS BUFFER
PROP. WETLAND IMPACT AREA ❑O 0 0700700700
�
LIP ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
EXIST. STREAM
EXIST. PCSO BUFFER
J
EXIST. MAJOR CONTOUR
—
EXIST. MINOR CONTOUR
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
Q"
CJS
W
N O Q
z N U
LL
Nz }
W ?> m
Co
:D Co O U
z 0 U
H U < m
a
Lu ui z
W J
Q U
U
z
Lu
0
J
a
U
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
N
H
m_
2
X
Lu
Lu
M
Z
J
Lu
131-
~a
V
a
Q
Lu
Lu
Lu
N
Lu
U U
Z
Q
130-aOX4
p
m
NI ON
Z
ooo»�
QoL1N
QQ
J
0
Z
GRAPHIC SCALE
Lu
0 20' 40' 80' 160'
...�
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
N
H
m_
2
X
Lu

NOTES:
1. WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION SHOWN PER "WETLAND SURVEY
OF MERIDALE-MAXWELL" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA WETLAND
SERVICES (CWS) ON "FLAG MAP NORTH AND SOUTH" DATED 4/25/2018.
3. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN PER "TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF:
MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8± ACRES" BY ESP
ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
4. SEE EXHIBIT 2 FOR PLAN VIEW OF IMPACTS.
GRAPHIC SCALE
40' 0 20' 40' 80'
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
4' 0 2' 4' 8
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 4 FT.
160'
16'
O O
C�30.74 •T• 34.26--1 21.36 �}
8207
PROP.
PERMANENT
FILL OVER
WETLANDS AA
:11
790 L-
A A
I -
Z
Ni
H
H
�Ny
I.f.
GRADE
PROP.)
PERMANENT
FILL OVER--
INTERMITTENT—
STREAM
VERINTERMITTENTSTREAM A
PROP.
PERMANENT
FILL OVER
WETLANDS BB
i-1
1-1
KIST.
RADE
R
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
4
w
o �
O � J
N O Q
Z N U
LL
N Z m
Wco
uj 2�
m O U
z p O
H U co m
Lu O w Z
O H Q Q
of Q U K
LL O U O
U
Z
H
W_
W
1—
p
J
LL'
Q
U
\W
Lu
m J
W
H
U '
as
�Q
www
>- W ~
W W
D
�" a
Z m
Q m
D od
Z
az
Q O
J Q �
H 0
w z
Qa
of
J p
U
I— Z_
W
O
�i U

NOTES
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
1. WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION SHOWN PER "WETLAND SURVEY GRAPHIC SCALE
OF MERIDALE-MAXWELL" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
40' 0 20' 40' 80' 160'
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA WETLAND
SERVICES (CWS) ON "FLAG MAP NORTH AND SOUTH" DATED 4/25/2018. LEGEND
3. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN PER "TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF: ( IN FEET) r , ,•,�
MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8± ACRES" BY ESP EXIST. WETLANDS '
ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018. 1 INCH = 40 FT.
775-
EXIST. WETLANDS BUFFER
TEMP. BYPASS PUMPING PROP. WETLAND IMPACT AREA ❑O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
EXIST. 100' (SEE CLDSM STD. NO. 30.22A) `P 12-0 ❑ 12.0-0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
(SEE IMPACT EXHIBIT 9) ti
PCCO BUFFER— EXIST. STREAM
771 -
- PROP. TEMPORARY
EXIST. PCSO BUFFER
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
/r EXIST. 50'
S4 - Stream G _ 768 / PCCO BUFFER EXIST. MAJOR CONTOUR — -
- 10 if permanent impact (rip rap stabilization TEMP. TIMBER BRIDGE �� �\ \
p p p p BY OTHERS EXIST. MINOR CONTOUR
X6- - - - -
along banks) H#3 (CONTRACTOR—RESPONSIBLE FOR \\\\\\ PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
S5 - Stream G DESI _ o
- 401f temporary impacts (sewerline INTERMITTENT �61�\ \
installation, bank stabilization, and dewaterrin \ \ STREAM G \\ \ i PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
system) �6�' ^\ / �6\ EXIST. S2 - Stream C
Z \ PROP. TEMPORARY PROPERTY - 10 if permanent impact (rip rap stabilization
IMPACT, INTERMITTENT BOUNDARY
UPLAND ZONE STREAM G (50 LF FOR along banks)
L— SEWER INSTALLATION \,EXIST. 100'
SWIM BUFFER / PCCO BUFFER
/ �� AND BYPASS PUMPING) \ S3 -Stream C
EXIST. 100 YEAR - 401f temporary impacts (sewerline
EXIST. 20' \ I \ \ \ ( STORMWATER installation, bank stabilization, and dewaterring
STREAM SIDE <o / �j \ PROP. GRAVITY ELEVATION
ZONE SWIM \w� / \ 1� �\ \ SEWER TRUNK LINE system)
BUFFER \\ / `� \ (LAYOUT SUBJECT TO TEMP. BYPASS PUMPING
CHANGE) '(SEE CLDSM STD. NO. 30.22A)
EXIST. �� �\ \ \ \ — _ (SEE IMPACT EXHIBIT 7)
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY \\� �\ \\ / \ �� ` H# TEMP. TIMBER BRIDGE - B
HE
PROP. STREAM CROSSING TO BE �� (CONTRACTOR RE NSIBLE FOR
INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT METHOD) \ — SI )
(SEE EXHIBIT 8 FOR STREAMBANK \ N ~ ~ Z o
RESTORATION) _ \ PROP. TEMPORARY IMPACT, A A
\ \ \ \ \ PERENNIAL STREAM C (50 LF o =
PROP. TEMPORARY A S\\ \FOR SEWER INSTALLATION AND D _
IMPERVIOUS DIKE \� \� \ \ BYPASS PUMPING) O
XI \
/, � O w m
\ ~ PROP. TEMPORARY � o
PROP. TEMPORARY
RIP RAP APRON FOR ��\ \ \ v o
BYPASS DISCHARGE \\ \RIP RAP APRON FOR
BYPASS DISCHARGE
\ PROP. TEMPORARYIOF
DEWATERING DEVICETOP , BANK L o� \� -761
EXIST. TEMP. BYPASS PUMPINGADJACENT
PROPERTY (SEE CLDSM STD. NO. 30.22A)
BOUNDARY (SEE IMPACT EXHIBIT 7)
PROP. TEMPORARY
IMPERVIOUS DIKE \ \ PROP. TEMPORARY
EXIST. \ 6 IMPERVIOUS DIKE
PERENNIAL #1
STREAM
PROP. TEMPORARY
PROP. STREAM CROSSING (TO BE B - DEWATERING DEVICE
INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT METHOD)
(SEE EXHIBIT 8 FOR STREAMBANK
RESTORATION)
H
m
2
x
W
m
2 _
W
W
U >
Q Z
Q
J
ILW
Z
W
W 06
U Cl)
0
LLJ
Z Q
Q
D �
J �
H
W

O m O
O O O O
770 ' 770
760
BOTTOM 3 OF OPEN CUT
STREAM BANK
TO BE RE-ESTABLISHED
WITH RIP RAP
750
r'AI
rn
0
co
GRAPHIC SCALE
40' 0 20' 40' 80'
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
-PROP. 8" SAN.
SWR.
EM
760
PROP. 8" SAN. -
SWR.
750
m
N
co
■■■■■
2
WW
m
■■■■■
X
W
NOTES:
■■
Q
■
■■
■■
Mor
■■r■E1
wm■■■E%II
mum■■Val
EMENFAVAIM
■E■s1„!■1
-EXIST.
■■
001
i
■
■o_or!lrE_�
—
■ENE■■
DATED 9/18/2018.
Lu
W
■ENE■
Q
a
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA
■■MEMO
SERVICES ON "FLAG
■■■_
W
■■
NONE
DATED 4/25/2018.
1
lEVANINEENE
■i
101�_g_■Il_�mmmmi
■■E
mollummillm
EE■Iiliri
R.■MI■■E■E
misr-AMMEME
!gym
■
mum
1.0'VERT. DIST.
Et
p
U
■E■E■■■1
U)
SURVEY OF: MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8±
■E■E■E■1
ACRES" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
■E■E■E■1
p
Z
W
4. SEE EXHIBIT 4 FOR PLAN VIEW OF IMPACTS.
■E■E■■■1
W
J
■E■E■■■1
�
■■E■E■■1
■EN■■■NEE
■ENE■■■1
■EN■■■NEE
■EN■■■NEE
■EN■■■NEE
■EN■■■NEE
GRAPHIC SCALE
40' 0 20' 40' 80'
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 40 FT.
-PROP. 8" SAN.
SWR.
EM
760
PROP. 8" SAN. -
SWR.
750
m
N
co
—PROP.
CLASS I
RIP RAP
`BOTTOM 3 OF OPEN CUT
STREAM BANK
TO BE RE-ESTABLISHED
WITH RIP RAP
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
<4
C/7
w
o
O � J
N O Q
Z N U
LL
N Z m
Lco
uJ 2�
m O U
zoco
H U co m
w ui z
W J
Of Q U K
LL U
U
Z
w
Lu
0
ry
J
Q
U
-PROP. CONCRETE
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
LOCATED AT TOP OF 00
BANK
O
00
N
ti
C C'
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
160' 4' 0 2' 4' 8
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 4 FT.
■■■■■
2
WW
m
■■■■■
X
W
NOTES:
■■
Q
■
■■
■■
Mor
■■r■E1
wm■■■E%II
mum■■Val
EMENFAVAIM
■E■s1„!■1
-EXIST.
■■
001
i
■
■o_or!lrE_�
—
■ENE■■
DATED 9/18/2018.
Lu
W
■ENE■
Q
a
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA
■■MEMO
SERVICES ON "FLAG
Lu
W
■■■■■■■1
DATED 4/25/2018.
U
■E■E■■■1
06
p
U
■E■E■■■1
U)
SURVEY OF: MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8±
■E■E■E■1
ACRES" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
■E■E■E■1
p
Z
W
4. SEE EXHIBIT 4 FOR PLAN VIEW OF IMPACTS.
■E■E■■■1
W
J
■E■E■■■1
�
■■E■E■■1
3.0
■ENE■■■1
—PROP.
CLASS I
RIP RAP
`BOTTOM 3 OF OPEN CUT
STREAM BANK
TO BE RE-ESTABLISHED
WITH RIP RAP
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
<4
C/7
w
o
O � J
N O Q
Z N U
LL
N Z m
Lco
uJ 2�
m O U
zoco
H U co m
w ui z
W J
Of Q U K
LL U
U
Z
w
Lu
0
ry
J
Q
U
-PROP. CONCRETE
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
LOCATED AT TOP OF 00
BANK
O
00
N
ti
C C'
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
160' 4' 0 2' 4' 8
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 4 FT.
2
WW
m
2
X
W
NOTES:
Q
J
1. WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION SHOWN PER "WETLAND
LL.
SURVEY OF MERIDALE-MAXWELL” BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC.
—
O
DATED 9/18/2018.
Lu
W
Z
Q
a
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA
SERVICES ON "FLAG
Lu
W
WETLAND (CWS) MAP NORTH AND SOUTH"
DATED 4/25/2018.
U
06
p
U
3. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN PER "TOPOGRAPHIC
U)
SURVEY OF: MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8±
Q
ACRES" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
p
Z
W
4. SEE EXHIBIT 4 FOR PLAN VIEW OF IMPACTS.
Q
W
J
�
L LI
3.0
16'
m
2
X
W

NOTES
1. WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION SHOWN PER "WETLAND SURVEY
OF MERIDALE-MAXWELL" BY ESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
2. WETLANDS AND STREAMS DELINEATED BY CAROLINA WETLAND
SERVICES (CWS) ON "FLAG MAP NORTH AND SOUTH" DATED 4/25/2018.
3. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN PER "TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF:
MERIDALE-MAXWELL PROPERTY BEING 166.8± ACRES" BY ESP
ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED 9/18/2018.
EX I ST. 10'
WETLAND
BUFFER
EXIST.
POND
(TYP.)\l
PROP. TEMPORARY
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
PROP. TEMPORARY
DEWATERING DEVICE
EXIST. 0' 1
WETLAND
BUFFER
EXIST.
TOP OF
BAN K a
EXIST.
(
WETLAND
PROP. TEMPORARY
RIP RAP APRON FOR l
BYPASS DISCHARGE,
\ I �
EXIST.
TL\ D /-
i
EXIST. 10'
WETLAND
BUFFER
TEMP. TIMBER BRIDGE - BY OTHERS
(CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR
DESIGN)
PROP. TEMPORARY
�
IMPERVIOUS DIKE ^
EXIST. 100 YEAF
v/pIV// STORMWATER
f
ELEVATION
CD
\'7
co
O O Lo
O O +
8100
•
11111
ce'04 -INTERMITTENT
STREAM F
0
,\\/�—
EXIST. 50'
PCSO BUFFER
i TEMP. BYPASS PUMPING
(SEE CLDSM STD. NO. 30.22A)
\ l (SEE IMPACT EXHIBIT 7)
—PROP. TEMPORARY IMPACT,
INTERMITTENT STREAM F (50 LF
�511FOR SEWER INSTALLATION AND
BYPASS PUMPING)
PROP. STREAM CROSSING (TO BE
INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT METHOD)
(SEE EXHIBIT 8 FOR STREAMBANK 790
RESTORATION)
0
1 EXIST. '100 YEAR
STORMWATER
ELEVATION
PROP. GRAVITY
SEWER TRUNK LINE
(LAYOUT SUBJECT TO
CHANGE)
EXIST. 100'
PCSO BUFFER
GRAPHIC SCALE
v
M■■■■■■■■■I1
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY.
-
LEGEND
■■■■■■■■■■■
w � �
EXIST. WETLANDS
r . . . . . . . . . . . . �
■■■■■■■■■■■
EXIST. WETLANDS BUFFER
PROP. WETLAND IMPACT AREA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y
■■■■■■■■■■■1
EXIST. STREAM
■■■■■■■■■■1
EXIST. PCSO BUFFER
\
�
■■■■■■■■■■1
N
J
EXIST. MAJOR CONTOUR
■■■■■■■1
z
}
m
LU
co
•
.1
■■■■■■1
z
a
■■■■■■1
w
O
W
011■■■■■■■■■1
Z
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
a
o
ai
o
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
11■■■■■■■■■1
1.■MEM■■■.RN
wom■ommu'u■1
■■■■■EN—MMI
U
z
1
MORE
.
-
�
0
■■■■
■
J
d'
a
■■■■■■11■■■
U
■■■■■■11M■■
opow-
0
WEEMEMEM
OEM-
m��
MEN
0101M
look
om
-
■1,■■■■■■■■■
■11■■■■■■■■■
■EII■iil
■NA■■■■■■■
ZZME■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■1
BOTTOM 3 OF OPEN CUT
STREAM BANK
TO BE RE-ESTABLISHED
WITH RIP RAP
-PROP. CONCRETE
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
LOCATED AT TOP OF
BANK
D'
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
Z Z
0o
0 A
A =
0
Z A
D m
�Z
�m
Wm
'o
Q0
20' 40' 80' 160' 4' 0 2' 4' 8 16'
m_
x
( IN FEET) ( IN FEET) W
1 INCH = 40 FT. 1 INCH = 4 FT.
H
cn
X W
W
~ W
V J
0
zaa
Lu ;z
U cn a
Z LL
Q �
�a
Z LLI
J � t
H
W Z
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY.
-
LEGEND
< og
w � �
EXIST. WETLANDS
r . . . . . . . . . . . . �
EXIST. WETLANDS BUFFER
PROP. WETLAND IMPACT AREA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑0
EXIST. STREAM
EXIST. PCSO BUFFER
\
�
N
J
EXIST. MAJOR CONTOUR
N
z
}
m
LU
co
EXIST. MINOR CONTOUR
z
a
}
w
O
W
iii
Z
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
a
o
ai
o
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
U
z
w
Lu
0
J
d'
a
U
BOTTOM 3 OF OPEN CUT
STREAM BANK
TO BE RE-ESTABLISHED
WITH RIP RAP
-PROP. CONCRETE
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
LOCATED AT TOP OF
BANK
D'
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
Z Z
0o
0 A
A =
0
Z A
D m
�Z
�m
Wm
'o
Q0
20' 40' 80' 160' 4' 0 2' 4' 8 16'
m_
x
( IN FEET) ( IN FEET) W
1 INCH = 40 FT. 1 INCH = 4 FT.
H
cn
X W
W
~ W
V J
0
zaa
Lu ;z
U cn a
Z LL
Q �
�a
Z LLI
J � t
H
W Z

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
BACKFILL TOP OF BANK WIDTH
SECTION OF MATTING WITH VARIES
MIN 6" TOPSOIL
T-0" MIN
TOP OF BANK
HERBACEOUS NATIVE
DISCHARGE HOSE PLANTS (MINIMUM OF 2 —_
SPECIES) INSTALL IN — I-II —III III—III
TRIANGULAR PATTERN WITH
ENERGY DISSIPATION 1 PLANT PER SQUARE FOOT —III—III III—I I—III—I
_ _-III=II III=III=III=
FLOW Q0 -
IMPERVIOUS DIKE SUCTION HOSE
+�5 I III -III=
P -Low INSTALL ANCHORS IN WOVEN COIR NET EROSION �P II—II—III
CONTROL BLANKET ACCORDANCE WITH
-D (ECB) I-III—III_ MANUFACTURES
_ SPECIFICATIONS
F� �w ORDINARY III- I I -I
HIGH WATER
MARK —III—I
R7`I I
PROJECT TOP OF BANK Y MATCH II -III -III
w EXISTING I I—III-I
m CHANNEL III -I
zmi
U LL BOTTOM
DEWATERING DEVICE <o
=11=III=III=1 I a I
w m -I I I -III -III -III- 1=I
20 I I-
-III -III -III -III -I I I-
—III III—III—III CLASS 124" THICK RIP RAP
WORK AREA III= 1=III=111-
NOTE:
ANCHOR ALL PUMPS AND PIPES SECURELY CHANNEL
SUBSTRATE
MATERIAL
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
• CITY OF CHARLOTTE STREAM BANK RESTORATION
O% LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BYPASS PUMPING PLANTING D ETA I L
ATTF. INCLUDES CHARLOTTE ETJ 30.22A 15
o
O � J
N O Q
Z N U
LL
N Z m
Z O0 N U
W O LLI Z
Of Q U of
a o co o
W
2
W _
H CV
LL
C)
H
W W
Z
Lu
'�2/�
A/ V /
U Lvf J
Z �
Q W
p p
Q
J
H
W

FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY
00
H
DO
2
X
Ill
H
m
2
W
H N
LL
CL clqO
WW
Z
LLI
U U) J
z F -
Q w
p p
Q
J
H
LLI
STREAMSIDE
TOP OF BANK
� \
�
ZONE
STREAM CENTERLINE
o
\
CLASS
I RIP RAP 24" THICK
WIDTH VARIES
JIN
HIGH PERFORMANCE
3' MIN.
Z
STABILIZATION
=
BOTTOM OF BANK
MATTING
ANCHOR FOR HIGH
PERFORMANCE SLOPE WATER LEVEL
MATTING =
HIGH PERFORMANCE
STABILIZATIONMATTING
I Z
TOP OF BANK
WOVEN COIR NET EROSION
2' MIN.
BLANKET (ECB)
(TYP.)
2
TOP OF BANK
\
EXTEND FILTER
CLASS 124" FABRIC 2' MIN.
THICK RIP RAP BOTTOM OF CREEK BEYOND RIP RAP
PROP. SANITARY
(—
FILTER FABRIC PROPOSED
SEWER
-
MIRAFI OR SANITARY SEWER
BOTTOM OF BANK
APPROVED
EQUAL
I
NOTE:
SEE EXHIBIT 7 FOR
I I I I
RIP RAP PLACEMENT MUST BE LIMITED TO A WIDTH OF 10—FEET
PLANTING DETAIL
ALONG STREAMBANKS. CENTERONED ON THE SANITARY SEWER
CROSSING. NO RIP RAP SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE CREEK BED.
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
STREAMBANK
RESTORATION
RIP RAP
PLACEMENT LIMITS
00
H
DO
2
X
Ill
H
m
2
W
H N
LL
CL clqO
WW
Z
LLI
U U) J
z F -
Q w
p p
Q
J
H
LLI

Cheyney
Attachments
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
ATTACHMENT E:
Stream Restoration Plan and Pond Draining

Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan
Cheyney Residential Subdivision
Mecklenburg County
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
October 31, 2018
CAROLINA
WETLAND SERVICES
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
Gregg Antemann, PWS

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Existing Conditions 3
Site Assessment 3
Site Description 4
Bankfull Verification 4
Geomorphic Assessment 5
Ecological Reference Reach 5
Ecosystem Enhancement Plan 6
Project Approach 6
Dam Removal 7
Ecological Uplift 7
Stream Design 8
Bank Stabilization 8
Monitoring Plan 9
Success Criteria 10
Channel Stability 10
Photo documentation 10
Ecological Function 10
Planting Plan 10
List of Figures
Exhibit 1 — Ecosystem Enhancement Location
Figure A — Ecosystem Enhancement Overview Map
Figure B — Construction Sequence
Figure C — Stabilization Plan
Figure D — Proposed Profile and Cross-sections
Figure E — Stream Bank Stabilization Detail
List of Tables
Table 1 — Field Measured and Projected Bankfull Area by Cross-section
Table 2 — Summary of Existing Conditions (Reference Reaches)
Table 3 — Proposed Channel Dimensions in feet
Table 4 — Proposed Stream Reach Data Summary
Table 5 — Proposed Planting Plan, Addington Crossing
Appendix A:
Reference Reach Longitudinal Profile and Cross Sections
Reference Reach Pebble Counts
Regional Curves
2 of 11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Introduction
The Cheyney residential subdivision site is approximately 163 acres in extent and is
located east of the Independence Hill Road and Arthur Davis Road intersection in
unincorporated Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2 of the
Pre -Construction Notification). A historic impoundment (Pond A) with an earthen dam,
along Perennial RPW Stream E (UT -Clarks Creek), is proposed to be removed. Pond A
is approximately 1.1 -acres in extent. Mattamy Homes proposes to drain the pond,
remove the dam, and perform a stream restoration. Removal of the pond and
restoration of the stream reach will remove an existing aquatic fauna migration barrier
and eliminate hazards associated with the dam structure. The purpose of this project is
to reconstruct and stabilize stream channel and adjoining riparian and flood prone areas
within the pond removal footprint.
Ecosystem enhancement will involve draining the pond, removing the existing dam, and
restoration of the previously existing stream impounded within the pond footprint and a
short section below the pond. Stream channel characteristics above the pond were
surveyed and identified using the Rosgen Level II Classification methods. Two adjacent
stream reaches were identified as stable and will be used as references for the stream
restoration design. Reference reaches 1 and 2 were field surveyed, collecting existing
morphological data used to classify the stable stream system and to create reference
figures and tables. This Stream Restoration Plan includes a current conditions
geomorphic assessment, designs, plans for the restoration and ecosystem enhancement
of Perennial RPW Stream E, and a monitoring plan to show Nationwide Permit (NWP)
27 ecological uplift requirements.
The proposed design is intended to reconstruct a stable stream channel for
approximately 642 -linear feet. The stream restoration activity will be within the footprint
of Pond A, and it will include daylighting stream channel along the existing 80 -linear foot
pond outfall pipe, as well as, an additional 20 -linear feet of stream channel directly below
the pond outfall pipe to create a stabilized channel tie-in with grade control structure.
Directly below the stream restoration tie-in point, an approximate 40 -linear foot section of
stream bank along the right stream side will be stabilized using natural stream design
techniques. Relevant regional curve and reference data will be utilized in the stream
design. Newly constructed stream channel, flood prone and riparian areas will be
stabilized using bioengineering and natural channel design approaches and techniques.
Existing Conditions
Site Assessment
A site visit and geomorphic survey was performed by CWS scientists Sean Martin,
Senior Project Scientist, and Hannah Meeler, Staff Scientist, on October 23, 2018. The
survey included a longitudinal profile (--160 ft.) and cross-sectional surveys (8
cross-sections: 4 riffles and 4 pools) of ecological reference Stream E (Attachment A).
The geomorphic assessment of Perennial RPW Stream E also included substrate
3of11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
sampling (Wolman reach -wide pebble count) and photographic documentation. This
data was used to classify Perennial RPW Stream E using the Rosgen Level II system. A
vegetative survey was conducted to describe on-site vegetation and aid in restoring the
riparian buffer and forest.
Site Description
The project site surrounding area consists of undeveloped forested areas, agricultural
land, and residential subdivisions. Typical on-site vegetation consists of black cherry
(Prunus serotina), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), elderberry (Sambucus
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), red deadnettle (Lamium purpureum),
pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), soft rush (Juncus
effusus), spotted ladysthumb (Polygonum persicaria), and various sedges (Carex spp.).
Bankfull Verification
Indicators of bankfull levels were identified in the field and included scour lines,
floodplain benches, and the backs of depositional bars. The observed bankfull
cross-sectional areas of the reference reaches were verified using the drainage area for
each reach, and the North Carolina Piedmont regional curves (Table 1 and Appendix A).
From the 8 reference cross-sections measured, just 2 of the observed bankfull
cross-sectional areas fall within the 95% confidence interval for the Rural Piedmont
North Carolina regression line (Cross-sections 1 and 3). This is most likely because the
flow of the reference reach is controlled by backwater from the downstream pond, as
well as, multiple piped sections upstream of the reference reaches and other online
ponds. The rural curve was used because less than 15% of watershed surface area is
impervious.' Locations of cross sections were chosen at areas that represent the overall
character of the reach. Cross-sectional measurements were not taken within two
bankfull widths of bedrock outcrops or other in -stream structures for consistency with
current methodology. In -stream structures alter the flow and velocity of the channel
resulting in the presence of non -representative bankfull indicators. The cross sections
were chosen to be the most representative within each reach, with the least amount of
existing disturbance.
Table 1. Field Measured and Projected Bankfull Area by Cross -Section
Cross-section
No. - Feature
Drainage Area
(sq. mile)*
Average Field Measured
Bankfull Area (sq. feet)
NC Piedmont Calculated Urban
Bankfull Area (sq. feet)**
XS -1 Pool
0.129
4.34
4.0
XS -2 Riffle
0.129
6.84
4.0
XS -3 Riffle
0.129
3.56
4.0
'USGS StreamStats 4.0. https://streamstatsags.cr.usas.aov/streamstats/. Accessed 5/2/17
4of11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
XS -4 Pool
0.129
6.02
4.0
XS -5 Pool
0.129
2.97
4.0
XS -6 Riffle
0.129
1.25
4.0
XS -7 Pool
0.129
2.22
4.0
XS -8 Riffle
0.129
1.1
4.0
* Drainage area measured from USGS StreamStats 4.0.
** Values in this column were calculated using the rural regression equation in Appendix A.
Geomorphic Assessment
Perennial RPW Stream E originates on-site below the confluence of two headwater
stream channels. The eastern stream channel originates at an onsite online pond (Pond
D), and the western stream channel originates from a headwater forested wetland
(Wetland 00). The flow of Perennial RPW Stream E is influenced by upstream on-site
ponds (Ponds B -D). The assessment area involved two stream ecological reference
reaches upstream of the proposed pond removal (Pond A). Longitudinal profiles,
cross-sections, and the Rosgen classification are discussed below.
Ecological Reference Reach
Geomorphic and Stability Assessment
Approximately 160 linear feet along Perennial RPW Stream E, immediately upstream of
Pond A, was surveyed and utilized as a reference (Reaches 1 & 2 - Exhibit 1). The
Rosgen Level II classification for the reference reach was identified as B5 based on
slight to moderate entrenchment and width to depth ratios. The reference reaches
exhibit substrate consisting of coarse sand (D50 =0.2 mm). The average drainage area
for this reach is approximately 0. 129 square miles (82.6 acres). The valley slope
averages 2%, bankfull slopes average 1.5%, and sinuosity averages 1.35. Mean
bankfull width and depth for the reaches are 6.125 feet and 0.34 feet, respectively. The
field measured average bankfull cross-sectional area for these reaches is 3.56 sq. feet.
The average width of flood -prone areas is 9.145 ft. These data are summarized in Table
2. Photographs of the reference reach are included in the Pre -Construction Notification.
Table 2 — Summary of Existing Conditions (Reference
Reaches)
Parameter
Existing Condition
Reaches 1 and 2
Reference Reach
Total Length (ft.)
160
Channel Dimension
Average Bankfull Width (ft.)
6.125
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft.)
0.34
Average Width/Depth Ratio
16.71
Average Bankfull Area (sq. ft.)
3.56
Average Width Flood -prone Area (ft.)
9.145
Average Entrenchment Ratio
1.83
Max Pool Depth ft.
1.38
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft.)
22.5
Channel Pattern
5of11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Sinuosity 1
1.35
Channel Profile
Valley Slope (ft./ft.)
0.02
Water Surface Slope (ft./ft.)
0.01326
Bankfull Slope (ft./ft.)
0.01477
Channel Materials
Bed Material Distribution
Material Size (mm)
d50
0.2
Rosgen Stream Type
B5
Ecosystem Enhancement Plan
Project Approach
In North Carolina, stream restoration and enhancement are defined in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines Report, dated April 2003, and prepared by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers —
Wilmington District (USACE).2 While these guidelines are not required to be met for this
project, their methodologies were utilized in designing and measuring aquatic resource
enhancement of the system.
CWS developed a stream design for the removal of Pond A and restoration of Perennial
RPW Stream E based on existing channel conditions of reference reaches and regional
curve data. This design will improve the goals of the Cheyney project and enhance
future water quality by removing stagnant stratified substrate, increasing the quality of
epifaunal substrate, increasing the health and diversity of suitable aquatic habitats, and
enhancing the riparian plantings. The old pond bed will be filled and planted with native
riparian species. Typical cross-sectional dimensions will be based on the existing cross
sectional dimensions of the reference reach (Attachment A), as well as, regional curve
data. A longitudinal profile will be developed for the restored stream that will tie-in to the
existing channel above Pond A and below the outfall pipe on Pond A. Reference and
regional curve data (Attachment A) will be used to layout the longitudinal profile within
the proposed stream construction corridor specifying pool -to -pool spacing, riffle -to -riffle
spacing, riffle and pool slopes, depths, and lengths.
Completing the stream restoration within the pond footprint will include field locating and
utilizing existing natural grade control to the extent practically feasible. The proposed
longitudinal profile (Figure D) is based on regional curve and reference data and will be
built using field identified features such as grade control and consolidated natural
ground. This will involve field adjustments to design where conditions are found to be
most suitable and exclude areas with conditions found to not fit with the proposed plan.
2 North Carolina Stream Mitigation Guidelines. 2003.
http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ab4ccad4-5cbe-45f3-979f-ab3fe35d21 a1 &groupId=61581
6of11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Dam Removal
The project grading contractor will drain the pond using NCDEMLR pond removal
protocols to avoid sediment discharges to downstream waters and to protect water
quality. Water drawdown rates will be adhered to and proper dewatering designs will be
utilized to minimize erosion and sediment loss. Following the pond draining activity, the
entire pond bed will be hydro -seeded with a temporary erosion control mix. Temporary
inlet protection will be installed around the existing outfall pipe to reduce sediment input
into the outfall system while work proceeds and site conditions become stabilized. The
earthen dam will be removed through excavation activities utilizing typical heavy
machinery. Erosion control measures will be employed to ensure sediments are isolated
and prevented from entering downstream waters. Once the earthen dam is removed,
stream flow will be intercepted at the upstream portion of the dam and stream restoration
construction corridor and piped around the entire construction corridor. The pond outfall
pipe will then be removed and stream restoration channel work will commence.
Ecological Uplift
The ecological value of Pond A is currently very limited. This impoundment is filled with
sediments and is limited in habitat diversity and biodiversity. Removing the dam and
restoring the stream system will provide an overall ecological uplift to the ecosystem by
providing diverse habitat for a variety of aquatic species and improve downstream water
quality. A biological assessment of the pond and ecological reference reach revealed a
low variety and abundance of species utilizing the pond, while a higher abundance and
variety of species were utilizing Perennial RPW Stream E.
The impoundment of Perennial RPW Stream E will be enhanced through the
construction of narrow bankfull benches, laying back of banks to a 3:1 slope or flatter,
and the installation of in -stream structures to improve the profile of the channel. A
moderately sinuous channel pattern will be designed through the thalweg of the pond.
The remaining previously ponded area will be planted with riparian vegetation and serve
as flood -prone benches and potential wetland complexes. The unimpounded channel
with access to wider flood -prone benches will decrease shear stress within the channel
and will reduce downstream bank erosion and sediment input. Cross -vanes will also be
used, as necessary to provide vertical channel stability. Live stake and bare root woody
vegetation will be used to promote bank stability on the outside of meander bends.
The restored channel reach is designed to have a profile and dimension similar to the
upstream reference reaches. The restored stream will have similar channel stability and
dimensions to the reference reach and the regional curve data, as well as, provide an
uplift to aquatic function by providing a higher quality riparian buffer by improving access
to the floodplain, adding riparian habitat, restoring riparian wetland connectivity, reducing
thermal pollution, and returning the system to native environmental conditions. The
improvements to the impounded ecosystem are designed to minimize downstream
erosion, sediment accumulation, and scouring by redirecting flow and reducing shear
stress during high flow events.
7of11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Stream Design
A stream design was developed for the impounded portions of Perennial RPW Stream E
based on the existing upstream reference reaches of the stream. Figure D shows typical
cross-sections for riffle and pool sections of the proposed stream design. The
dimensions of the proposed new channel are given in Table 3. The proposed channel
pattern and profile are also shown on Figure D. Table 4 summarizes the proposed
stream reach data and is shown below.
Table 3: Proposed Channel Dimensions in feet.
Table 4 — Proposed Stream Reach Data Summary
Parameter
Rosgen
Width of
642
Mean
Average Bankfull Width (ft.)
4.5
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft.)
0.43
Average Width/Depth Ratio
10.5
Bankfull
4.25
Width/Depth
Bankfull
Max
Entrenchment
Feature
Stream
Floodprone
12-18
Bankfull
10-15
Riffle Length (ft.)
10-15
Channel Pattern
Sinuosity
Width
Channel Profile
Ratio
Area
Depth
Ratio
0.015
T e
Area
Bed Material Distribution
Depth
d50
0.2
Rosgen Stream Type
B5
Riffle
B
21.0
6.0
0.4
15.0
4.0
0.6
3.5
Use
Pool Use
B
21.0
8.0
0.85
9.5
6.0
1.5
2.63
Table 4 — Proposed Stream Reach Data Summary
Parameter
Proposed Condition
New Length of Reach (ft.)
642
Channel Dimension
Average Bankfull Width (ft.)
4.5
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft.)
0.43
Average Width/Depth Ratio
10.5
Average Bankfull Area (sq. ft.)
4.25
Average Width Flood -prone Area (ft.)
21
Average Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
Max Pool Depth (ft.)
1.5
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft.)
12-18
Pool Length (ft.)
10-15
Riffle Length (ft.)
10-15
Channel Pattern
Sinuosity
1.2-1.5
Channel Profile
Valley Slope (ft./ft.)
0.02
Channel Slope (ft./ft.)
0.015
Channel Materials
Bed Material Distribution
Material Size (mm)
d50
0.2
Rosgen Stream Type
B5
Bank Stabilization
Directly below the tie-in point from the stream restoration construction corridor, the
existing stream bank is severely incised and undercut from stream velocities exiting the
existing pond outfall pipe. An approximate 40 -foot section of stream bank along the right
stream side will be stabilized using natural stream design techniques. These techniques
8of11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
will include grading the streambank to a stable slope (2:1 to 3:1), matting, seeding, and
planting livestakes. Attached is a typical cross-section view of the proposed bank
stabilization work (Figure E).
Monitoring Plan
Mitigation is not required for this project, therefore, no USACE or NCDEQ official
monitoring program will be executed for this project. However, in order to ensure the
success of the proposed ecological uplift required by NWP 27, the proposed stream
restoration will be monitored every other year over a five year period beginning from the
completion of the work for a total of three monitoring events. Monitoring techniques and
practices will be adapted from the USACE and NCDEQ Stream Mitigation Guidelines for
North Carolina.3 Qualitative monitoring data for vegetation survival analysis, habitat
assessments, and channel stability analysis will be gathered and photo documented in
order to assess the variety of aquatic resource functions and services the restored
stream system will provide to the area.
The monitoring event will be conducted during mid -growing season. The report will
include photographs, rapid assessment vegetation survival counts, stream stability
documentation, and a short narrative describing current site conditions as they relate to
aquatic habitat function. Photographs will be taken from no fewer than four established
monitoring positions. The exact locations will be determined, marked with a stake, and
recorded with a GPS receiver in the field immediately following as -built completion and
used in the following monitoring event.
Upon completion of the project, an as -built channel survey will be conducted. The
survey will document the dimension, pattern, and profile of the restored channel. Six
permanent cross-sections will be established at an approximate frequency of one per 20
bankfull-width lengths (approximately one for every 100 feet of channel). The selection
of locations will include areas that may be predisposed for potential problems. The
as -built survey will also include photo documentation at all cross-sections and structures,
a plan view diagram, a longitudinal profile, vegetation information, and a pebble count for
at least all cross-sections. The longitudinal profile will include the entire length of the
restored stream channel.
Vegetation survival counts will be collected from established plots within each monitored
area. The plot locations will be randomly determined in the office using GIS. The plots
for stream restoration sites extend from the toe of bank to the furthest edge of the
outside planting zone. The total area of plots is equal to 10% of the specific restoration
site.
Monitoring data collected will include the following:
• reference photos (before and after)
• plant survival analysis
• channel stability analysis
• instream habitat analysis
3 USACE 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
9of11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Success Criteria
As described above, this guidance requires three forms of monitoring to evaluate the
success of the project; photo documentation, ecological function, and channel stability
measurements. These criteria will be used to evaluate success by considering the
following data:
Channel Stability
There should be insignificant change from the as -built dimensions to those measured in
the field during monitoring. If changes are present the changes should be minor and
represent an increase in stability (e.g. decreased width to depth ratio without a decrease
in entrenchment ratio).
• There should be little change from the as -built longitudinal profile.
• Pool/riffle spacing should remain fairly constant.
• Pools should not be filling in (aggradation) or riffles starting to change to pools
(degradation).
• Three permanent cross-sections should remain fairly stable.
• Pebble count should show a change in the size of bed material toward the
desired composition.
Photo documentation
• Channel aggradation or degradation
• Bank erosion
• Success of riparian vegetation
• Effectiveness of erosion control measures
• Presence or absence of developing instream bars (should be absent)
Ecological Function
• Health and survival of planted vegetation
• Presence of instream habitat structures
Planting Plan
Natural coconut matting (coir matting), native seed mix, live stakes, and native plants will
be installed on both sides of the restored stream in the 25 -foot wide riparian zone for
bank stabilization and erosion control. Vegetation species were chosen based on the
existing plant community and to add species diversity, particularly in the riparian zone.
Stream banks consist of three zones: 1) lower stream banks, 2) upper stream banks,
and 3) riparian buffer. Revegetation of the area directly adjacent to the restored channel
is especially important to prevent erosion, downstream sedimentation, and provides
important water quality and habitat services. Wetland plant species such as silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum), river birch (Betula nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), and
soft rush (Juncus effusus) will be planted on the lower stream banks (Zone 1). Black
willow and clusters of soft rush will be planted on outside stream bends for dense rooting
and erosion control. Upper stream banks (Zone 2) will be planted with other
10 of 11

Cheyney Residential Subdivision October 31, 2018
Pond Removal and Stream Restoration Plan CWS Project No. 2018-0103
moisture -tolerant species such as green ash and red maple. The riparian buffer (Zone
3) will be planted with species such as ironwood, slippery elm, and spicebush. All
disturbed areas will be seeded with temporary and permanent native riparian and
wetland seed mixes, and stream banks will be matted with natural coconut matting.
Planting plan details are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Proposed Planting Plan, Addington Crossing
Zone 1 - Lower Stream Banks (5,136 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Soft rush
Juncus effusus
Plug
3' 0. C.
571
Live Stakes
Selection from below
Live stake
5' 0. C.
205
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Live stake
Black willow
Salix nigra
Live stake
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
Live Stake
Zone 2 - Upper Stream Banks (19,260 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Tree Species
Selection from below
Bare root
8' 0. C.
301
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Bare root
River birch
Betula nigra
Bare root
Red maple
Acer rubrum
Bare root
Zone 3 - Riparian Buffer (21,100 sq ft)
Common name
Botanical name
Size
Spacing
# of Plants
Tree/shrub Species
Selection from below
One Gallon
10' O.C.
321
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
One Gallon
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
One Gallon
Red maple
Acer rubrum
One Gallon
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
One Gallon
Slippery elm
Ulmus rubra
One Gallon
11 of 11

Cheyney Pond Removal and Stream Restoration
Attachments
FIGURES
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103

NOTES:
1. WETLANDS AND STREAM INFORMATION SHOWN PER "FLAG MAP
NORTH AND SOUTH" BY CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES (CWS) DATED
4/25/2018.
Q`��G�p0i91�
W 30
H- D oo
OQ�rn
Yeo¢
of
L � pj
(D a.o
I i
PROP. PERMANENT
IMPACT TO
WETLANDS AA & BB
AND STREAM A (SEE
PLAN AND SECTION
VIEWS FOR DETAILS)
INTERSTATE 1-485
PUBLIC R/W WIDTH VARIES
NCDOT PROJ# R -2248D do R2248E
DB 18282 PG 254
DB 29173 PG 326
(CONTROLLED ACCES)
INTERSTATE 1-485
PUBLIC R/W WIDTH VARIES
NCDOT PROJ# R -2248D do R2248E
DB 18282 PG 254
DB 29173 PG 326
(CONTROLLED ACCES)
PROP. TEMPORARY IMPACT
`/f TO STREAM F
_(SEE PLAN AND SECTION
VIEWS FOR DETAILS)
11-11(C v "
0 FUTURE
PHASE 1
(LAYOUT SUBJECT
TO CHANGE)
l
PROP.
SUBJECT TO
PHIL M. CANDY JR. !t
/ REBECCA J. CANDY
ItA
�
DB 25712 PG 800
800
TAX# 027-18-124
�v
40' Pig%
FOR USACE PERMITTING ONLY. - ;$ E
w � �
INTERSTATE WIDTH
VA
PUBLIC R/W 2248 VARIES
NCDOT PROJ# 2 796 PCD do R2248E
DB 28796 PG 140
(CONTROLLED ACCES)
(EXCEPTION #251
AMBER RIDGE HOMEOWNERS p Of
ASSOCIATION, INC. p K
DB 11008 PG 594
COS, MB 30 PG 635
TAX# 027-61-167 z o Q
LL N U
��z>-
m
w
FUTURE z
? o a
�P }
PHASE2 PROP. BMP
(LAYOUT SUBJECT (LOCATION z
O
w ui �
TO CHANGE) Of Q U Of
SUBJECT TO
CHANGE)
\ U
27
Lu
c)
U
� oR\v�RiW
y0 PUwc \ EXIST.
MERIDALE
SUBDIVISION
F � �P�g✓ Iw
50
PROP. TEMPORARY IMPACTS
TO STREAMS C AND G
(SEE PLAN AND SECTION
VIEWS FOR DETAILS)
ZZ
n
�p
o=
Z A_
v 1°
W-4
m
�o
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
400' 0 200' 400' 800' 1600'
( IN FEET)
1 INCH = 400 FT.
m_
2
W
U
� Z
J
W a
Lu W Q
U �
0
QLuo
0
Z
Q
J i
F
W
I

Wetland JJ \
Stream E
_ Stream E
Restoration Tie-in
Reference Survey
Reach 1 and 2
Legend
Proposed Stream Restoration (642 -ft.)
Stream Restoration Corridor (0.59 -ac.)
Proposed Bank Stabilization
Perennial Stream
- - - • Intermittent Stream
® Forested Wetlands
Herbaceous Wetlands
Jurisdictional Pond
Pipe
Pond A - 1.1 -ac.
To Be Removed
100 50
L
Stream E
To Be Restored
Within Pond Footprint
100 Feet
Stream E
Restoration Tie-in
Cheyney Ecosystem Enhancement Project
C
CD
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Q
Q
Assessed by: Sean Martin and Daniel Roberts
Cf)
Watershed Area: 82.6 -acres or 0.13-sq.miles
c
Watershed Land -Use: Agricultural, Forested,
Residential
>m
Streambed Substrate: Sand
m
Valley Type: Alluvial
w
Z
¢
Valley Slope: 2%
Q
D
0
D
Stream Length: 642 -feet
M
•�a
Bankfull Slope: 1.5%%
�
M
Channel Morphology
ITarget
O
Abkf: riffle bankfull cross-section area
4sf
Regional Curve Data
3.6sf
Reference Survey
Wbkf/Dbkf: bankfull width to depth ratio
11-20
Regional Stream Data
14-19
Reference Survey
Stable Streambank Side Slopes
2:1 - 4:1
Regional Stream Data
Sinuosity of Channel
1-1.6
Regional Stream Data
1.35
Reference Survey
Meander Width Ratio
1-3
Regional Stream Data
1.48
Reference Survey
Radius of Curvature Ratio
2-3
Regional Stream Data
2.27
Reference Survey
Pool Spacing Ratio
3-5
Regional Stream Data
4.975
Reference Survey
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.5
Regional Stream Data
1.83
Reference Survey
Bank Height Ratio
1
Regional Stream Data
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
5.0
Regional Curve Data
4.3
Reference Survey
0
80 -ft. of Pipe Removal
40' Bank Stabilization
Wetland II
J Wetland JJ I
0
C
CD
C)
Q
Q
C)
Cf)
U
c
o
>m
M
m
o
w
Z
¢
y
w
Q
D
0
D
2
U
M
•�a
o
�
M
Z
O
I I
o7
C) 000
moN
U
o0
J
U �
N
O
N
U
Uo
FIGURE NO.
C
M
a
c
M
E CL
o
0Fn5
M
3
v
�t
M
•�a
o
Z
W L
E>
p
>, o
0
V
N
\
0
\
w
FIGURE NO.

XISTING
j
STREAM RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. DRAIN POND USING PIPE DIVERSION. PIPE DIVERSION TO BE
SIZED APPROPRIATELY BASED ON TWO—YEAR STORM EVENT.
STAKE DIVERSION PIPE DOWN TO PREVENT MOVEMENT. PLACE
SANDBAGS OR RIPRAP AT OUTFALL AS VELOCITY DISSIPATOR.
ALLOW POND BED TO DRY OUT FOR SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE
BEGINNING STREAM RESTORATION WORK.
2. SEED ENTIRE POND BED WITH TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL
SEED MIX FOLLOWING DRAINING. SPREAD STRAW COVER OVER
SEED MIX.
3. COMPLETE STREAM RESTORATION WORK. REFER TO STREAM
RESTORATION PLAN SHEETS (FIGURES C AND D).
4. STABILIZE RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL BANKS AND RIPARIAN
CORRIDOR (REFER TO STABILIZATION PLAN SHEET, FIG. C).
5. PLANT LIVE STAKES IN RIPARIAN CORRIDOR DURING
IMMEDIATE DORMANT VEGETATION SEASON (SEE
STABILIZATION PLAN SHEET, FIG. C).
/1//1/■1/■1//I/■1�■I■■I■■I//I■/I■■I■■I■■I■■I/■II
POND FOOTPRINT
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT ON FINAL
STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN ONCE THE POND HAS BEEN DRAINED. FINAL
LOCATION FOR LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES AND BOULDERS SHALL BE
DETERMINED BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS.
2. NOT TO DISTURB HERBACEOUS WETLANDS ABOVE POND AREA. ACCESS TO
POND - STREAM RESTORATION SITE NEEDS TO AVOID THE WETLANDS.
ROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
20 -FT. FROM EDGE OF RESTORATION CH
TYPICAL POOL
SECTION
i
TYPICAL LOG GRADE
CONTROL STRUCTURE
(RIFFLE)
♦ •
00
�■ ���00♦♦ i
■■I■■■■I■■■■I■■■■■■■■I■■I■■I■■I■■■■■■■I■■I■■I■■I■■I■■I■■I■■I■■I■�I■ 111111111111 //♦//////\�
■ 111111
XISTING UT -CLARKS CREEK
CREEK ABOVE POND
PROPOSED UT -CLARKS CREEK RESTORATION
CHANNEL APPROX. 642 -LINEAR FEET IN LENGTH, PROPOSED RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL TO TIE 1
2% SLOPE TO EXISTING CHANNEL BELOW SPILLWAY
NOT TO SCALE
XISTING EARTHEN BERM
�pW p\REO\ON��
F
0
N
r`
N
w
z
W
H
a
U
W
J
¢
V)
r
z
3
U
�m
o Co
0�o
0_ �
110
30
U N
A
r
as
A
w
Y
U
W
U
Z
J
J ¢
J
(L¢
QU)
W W (h
zU- N
>= N
JWzurw
U) P! Z= C
ODaiw
�3 HoQv
in
QFWraWnu
Lu > Q_ 3
W
U
W
Llv
z
0
V)
0
U
U U Z
Wz,
o
O U
ryw�
}oma
WJz
Z�W
�¢ J
W Y
= U U
U UW
IGURE NO.
B

SQUARE CUTS LIVE STAKING — BANK STABILIZATION (N.T.S.)
BUDS (FACING
NOTES -
1. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE EVENLY SPACED 4 FEET APART.
LIVE CUTTING2• LIVE STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN UNTIL APPROXIMATELY % OF LIVE STAKE
(3¢'-13¢' DIAMETER) 2-3 FEET IN IS WITHIN GROUND.
LENGTH 3. IF STARTER HOLE IS NEEDED, MINIMIZE AIR POCKET AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
ANGLE CUT 4. UTILIZE ON SITE TRANSPLANT MATERIALS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE OWNER.
30-45 DEGREES ONCE SOURCE OF TRANSPLANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN HARVESTED, UTILIZE
LIVE STAKING.
NOTE-
STAKINGMAY BE REQUIRED THROUGH
MATTING, ROCK, OR COMPACTED SOILS,
REQUIRE STARF— ..- � — —, 1-1
NOR
MATTING LOCATION (N.T.S.)
NA GREEN SC150 BN
MATTTING FROM TOE
OF CHANNEL TO 5
FEET BEYOND
BANKFULL /
NOTES, —11�
1) USE WOOD STAKES OR
ECOSTAKES (NOT METAL) F❑F
MATTING INSTALLED IN PUMP
AROUNDS OR IN THE WET,
2) USE OF METAL STAPLES
IS ACCEPTABLE WHEN
CONSTRUCTING IN THE DRY
AND VEGETATI❑N IS
ESTABLISHED PRI❑R TO
DIVERTING WATER,
NOT TO SCALE ■■■■'•��� �� ��
TYPICAL DEPICTION OF POND REMOVAL STABILIZE■,■■���• ■• •■ •■
POND
AND STREAM RESTORATION ■vim■ ■■ �■ BERVNEWLY EDGEOF ST REAM RIIPARIANT CORRIDOR
TEMPORARY
SANDBAG
DIVERSION.
TEMPORARY PIPE
DIVERSION - SIZED
TO CONVEY 2 -YEAR
STORM FLOW.
STAKED DOWN AT
10 -FT INTERVALS.
INCLUDING SDTU�BEDNDMITS STRAWITEROSION
COVER
4.5' WIDE AVERAGE
--BANKFULL CHANNEL - - - - - -
CHANNEL TOE
BANKFULL
NA GREEN SC150 BN
NA GREEN C125 BN -
OUTSIDE OF
BANKFULL TO TOP
OF FLOODPLAIN,
APPROX, B -FT WIDE
- - _ _ - - - - - - - - _ STREAM RIPARIAN CORRIDOR (-25' 4
• WIDE) - EROSION CONTROL _ _ _ - 4
MATTING, NATIVE PLANT SEEDING
AND LIVE STAKES WITHIN RIPARIAN `♦
- - - CORRIDOR. NO MATTING BELOW z
BANKFULL ELEVATION IN STREAM `♦
\ �•, CHANNEL.
TRENCH MATTING T❑ A
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6
INCHES AND BACKFILL
NA GREEN IS' LONG
ECOSTAKES
NA GREEN ECOSTAKES
TEMPORARY PIPE
DIVERSION OUTFALL
ONTO SANDBAG
VELOCITY DISSIPATOR.
■
♦FLOW DIRECTIO
Co
H
z
L.1
J
¢
u
0
ii
U
W
co
00
CC
0 -ca o
L7 �
30
U (U
Qww
Z2=) (U
z: (U
JWz Zrl
�r
Oow �N
�a3 0'T
Q�w
o Qczr,
Luto3: In
� z
U�J�
wzo
U
O
0_' W L7
0- CY
>- ED pq
W J z
zO�w
>- ¢ J
W = Y
= U U
U W
IGURE N❑,
C

Typical Design Pool Cross-section
12 3:1 Side Slopes Flood Prone Elevation
10 ---------------- ------------------
Bankfull Elevation
C 8
`o
w 6
0
0
00
Wbkf=8.0 Dbkf=0.85 Abkf=6.0
5 30 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Typical Design Riffle Cross-section
a -
2-3:1 Side Slopes Flood Prone Elevation
2�
6
---------------------------------
s
Bankfull Elevation
0 4
3
2 Wbkf=6.0 Dbkf=0.4 Abkf=4.0
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Horizontal Distance (ft)
15
AVOID WETLANDS
0.129 SQ. MI.
1.
12" MIN. DIAMETER LOGS
ABOVE POND
2.
14
W/D:
3.
NAIL HEADER LOG TO
P—P
Spacing: 12-18'
FOOTER LOG USING"
Length: 10-15'
Riffle
REBAR
Pool
13
NAIL NON—WOVEN FILTER
Wbkf: 6'
0
CLOTH TO TOP OF LOG AND
Q g
BURY UPSTREAM END
12
Qww
BENEATH ROCK CLUSTER
rn
Z�=
a
AND CHANNEL BED
5.
CUT 2"X 12" NORMAL FLOW
rnr!
0 W
r�
W N C
NOTCH IN TOP OF HEADER
N
QFWa
LOG
wo>a
0 nmu0-
10
EMBED ENDS OF LOG VANES
IN STREAM BANKS
7.
ANCHOR ENDS OF LOG
VANES WITH BALLAST
LOG — MINIMUM 12"
9
BOULDER OR DUCK BILL
NON—WOVEN FILTER CLOTH, DIAMETER. AVERAGE
�
NAILED TO TOP OF LOG AND LENGTH 12'.
CABLE ATTACHED
8
-- FLOW
ROCK CLUSTERS
1 STREAM BED
_
8.
NATURAL/NATIVE STONE
S�
7
6"-12" MEDIAN DIAMETER
/ -----
9.
ROCK CLUSTERS EMBEDDED
ROCK CLUSTERS
BELOW CHANNEL BED
r�
6
�
5
0
4
3
POND PROFILE IS A DEPICTION BASED ON LIDAR DATA.
PROPOSED STREAM PROFILE NOT TO SCALE. LOCATION OF
7
PROPOSED IN -STREAM STRUCTURES IS TYPICAL ONLY.
CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
ON FINAL STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN ONCE THE POND HAS
1
BEEN DRAINED. FINAL LOCATION FOR LOG GRADE CONTROL
STRUCTURES AND BOULDERS SHALL BE DETERMINED BASED ON
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
0
0 1+00 2+00
XISTING POND WATER SURFACE
XISTING BOTTOM OF PON
TYPICAL PROPOSED STREAM
RESTORATION POOL TO POOL
SPACING AT 12-18' INTERVALS
TYPICAL LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
LOG GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
0.129 SQ. MI.
1.
12" MIN. DIAMETER LOGS
Dmax: 1.5—FT
2.
12' MIN. LENGTH LOGS
W/D:
3.
NAIL HEADER LOG TO
P—P
Spacing: 12-18'
FOOTER LOG USING"
Length: 10-15'
Riffle
REBAR
Pool
4.
NAIL NON—WOVEN FILTER
Wbkf: 6'
0
CLOTH TO TOP OF LOG AND
Q g
BURY UPSTREAM END
Qww
BENEATH ROCK CLUSTER
rn
Z�=
a
AND CHANNEL BED
5.
CUT 2"X 12" NORMAL FLOW
rnr!
0 W
r�
W N C
NOTCH IN TOP OF HEADER
N
QFWa
LOG
wo>a
0 nmu0-
6.
EMBED ENDS OF LOG VANES
IN STREAM BANKS
7.
ANCHOR ENDS OF LOG
VANES WITH BALLAST
LOG — MINIMUM 12"
BOULDER OR DUCK BILL
NON—WOVEN FILTER CLOTH, DIAMETER. AVERAGE
ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED
NAILED TO TOP OF LOG AND LENGTH 12'.
CABLE ATTACHED
BURLED BELOW STREAM BED.
-- FLOW
ROCK CLUSTERS
1 STREAM BED
_
8.
NATURAL/NATIVE STONE
S�
6"-12" MEDIAN DIAMETER
/ -----
9.
ROCK CLUSTERS EMBEDDED
ROCK CLUSTERS
BELOW CHANNEL BED
ATER SURFACE
TYPICAL PROPOSED LOG GRADE
CONTROL WITH ROCK CLUSTERS
(RIFFLES) SPACED AT 15-20'
INTERVALS
3+00 4+00
S TA TI 0 N
STREAM DESIGN TABLE
DA:
0.129 SQ. MI.
Wbkf:
4.5—FT
Dmax: 1.5—FT
Abkf:
4.25—FT
W/D:
10.5
Slope: 2%
P—P
Spacing: 12-18'
Pool
Length: 10-15'
Riffle
Length: 10-15'
Pool
Wbkf: 8'
Riffle
Wbkf: 6'
ARTHEN BERM
5+00 6+00
TIE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO
EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL
7+00
b
LD
U ¢
< U
(/) r
r PA
J Pq Pq
:ml Z LJ
u
¢ LJ
CIE 0' _
::I r- U
0
z
E]
I—I
I—
U
w
V)
V)
V
E]z
U U J
U azo
[::] U
Q LLJ
n L7
z
Q W��
Z�z
w W=_J
-J = U U
U
LLJLL_
w
0
0
FIGURE NO.
D
0
U
Z
0_
U
�
Q
LJ
�_
L3
E3 o_
Z r
LJ
D- O
I
u
J
v
30
J H
CL
0
U (U
Q g
Qww
�
rn
Z�=
a
JWz
L)�1y
ZZ
rnr!
0 W
r�
W N C
SOI
N
QFWa
o�
0
�n u
wo>a
0 nmu0-
3
3
0
z
E]
I—I
I—
U
w
V)
V)
V
E]z
U U J
U azo
[::] U
Q LLJ
n L7
z
Q W��
Z�z
w W=_J
-J = U U
U
LLJLL_
w
0
0
FIGURE NO.
D

0
Z
� F- J Z
O
w F--
<
Q Z Z U J m W
cn J
C�
Z_ j� � U Q w w
Z w w ry Q
I—
O>z� � m z
O F--
�w Q,1,z Q
Q
zz� m Q
=CD= z
m
Q z O i
1--
m�z icnN_ o
LLJ J
W J�m I _ O
cn a w I Q z
I --CD _� I _
ooc~n zo I -il = — 3:
cnzzz F
XQ O Q.I = _ z o
J
Li J J o w , �
w�QQ� J cn
II = _ = Q
oo0� w = m
J� z w a- J _' m
cn
wOXQ:fO D
�0:2i00 Y — — = uJ LijO
U) N
i
1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I '- o
1=111=111=111=111 cn
1=1 11=1 11=1 I i- w
Ill,; lli—
U
w
= Z
� W
Qo r1K W
a �
p U_w U
_ � Q
O Z
U < J
Z Q F --J
Q W Z
N
FIGURE NO. STREAM BANK STABILIZATION DETAILCAROLINA SCALE:NTS DATE: OCT. 31, 2018
E
WETLAND SERVICES DRAWN BY: SAM
550 E. WESTINGHOUSE BLVD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
PH: 704.527.1177
ww —s-inc.net

Cheyney Pond Removal and Stream Restoration
Attachments
mon \0
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103

C
O
N
W
Reach 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance along stream (ft)
WS Best Fit Slope = 0.00779
BKF Best Fit Slope = 0.00995
0 CH
O Ws
♦ BKF
♦ P1
O P2
+ P3
X P4

C
O
N
W
Reach 2
0 20 40 60 80
Distance along stream (ft)
WS Best Fit Slope = 0.01326
BKF Best Fit Slope = 0.01477
0 CH
O Ws
♦ BKF
♦ P1
O P2
+ P3
X P4

N
C
O
N
LU
XS 1- Pool
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 9.68 Dbkf = .45 Abkf = 4.34
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
N
W
XS 2- Riffle
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 18.3 Dbkf = .37 Abkf = 6.84
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
N
W
XS 3- Riffle
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 8.29 Dbkf = .43 Abkf = 3.56
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

N
C
O
N
LU
XS 4- Pool
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 6.96 Dbkf = .87 Abkf = 6.02
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
N
W
XS 5- Pool
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 9.85 Dbkf = .61 Abkf = 2.97
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

N
C
O
N
LU
XS 6- Riffle
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 3.56 Dbkf = .35 Abkf = 1.25
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
N
W
XS 7- Pool
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 3.49 Dbkf = .64 Abkf = 2.22
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Horizontal Distance (ft)

N
C
O
N
LU
XS 8- Riffle
O Ground Points ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 3.96 Dbkf = .28 Abkf = 1.1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Worksheet 2-3. Field form for Level II stream classification (Rosgen, 1996; Rosgen and Silvey, 2005).
Stream: Pond Restoration, Reach - Reach 1 (Lower)
Basin: Yadkin 03040105 Drainage Area: 82.56 acres 0.129 mit
Location: Reference Reach
Twp.&Rge: ; Sec.&Qtr.: ;
Cross -Section Monuments (Lat./Long.): 35.360873 Lat / -80.815204 Long Date: 10/24/18
Observers: Valley Type: C -AL -F
Bankfull WIDTH (Wbkf)
WIDTH of the stream channel at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle section. 8.29 If
Bankfull DEPTH (dbkf)
Mean DEPTH of the stream channel cross-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a
riffle section (dbkf = A / Wbkf). 0.43
Bankfull X -Section AREA (Abkf)
AREA of the stream channel cross-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle
section. 3.56
Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf/ dbkf)
Bankfull WIDTH divided by bankfull mean DEPTH, in a riffle section. 19.28
Maximum DEPTH (dmbkf)
Maximum depth of the bankfull channel cross-section, or distance between the
bankfull stage and Thalweg elevations, in a riffle section. 0.87
WIDTH of Flood -Prone Area (Wfpa)
Twice maximum DEPTH, or (2 x dmbkf) = the stage/elevation at which flood -prone area
WIDTH is determined in a riffle section. 11.05
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
The ratio of flood -prone area WIDTH divided by bankfull channel WIDTH (Wfpa/ Wbkf)
(riffle section). 1.43
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index ) Dso
The D50 particle size index represents the mean diameter of channel materials, as
sampled from the channel surface, between the bankfull stage and Thalweg
elevations. 0.19
Water Surface SLOPE (S)
Channel slope ='rise over run" for a reach approximately 20-30 bankfull channel
widths in length, with the 'riffle -to -riffle" water surface slope representing the gradient
at bankfull stage. 0.00995
Channel SINUOSITY (k)
Sinuosity is an index of channel pattern, determined from a ratio of stream length
divided by valley length (SL / VL); or estimated from a ratio of valley slope divided by
channel slope (VS / S). 1.35
Stream I B rJC (See Figure 2-14)
Type > <
ft
ft/ft
ft/ft
mm
Copyright © 2006 W ildland Hydrology River Stability Field Guide page 2-60

Worksheet 2-3. Field form for Level II stream classification (Rosgen, 1996; Rosgen and Silvey, 2005).
Stream: Pond Restoration, Reach - Reach 2 (Upper)
Basin: Yadkin 03040105 Drainage Area: 82.56 acres 0.129 mit
Location: Reference Reach
Twp.&Rge: ; Sec.&Qtr.: ;
Cross -Section Monuments (Lat./Long.): 35.362363 Lat / -80.816029 Long Date: 10/24/18
Observers: Valley Type: C -AL -F
Bankfull WIDTH (Wbkf)
WIDTH of the stream channel at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle section. 3.96 If
Bankfull DEPTH (dbkf)
Mean DEPTH of the stream channel cross-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a
riffle section (dbkf = A / Wbkf). 0.28
Bankfull X -Section AREA (Abkf)
AREA of the stream channel cross-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle
section.
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf/ dbkf)
Bankfull WIDTH divided by bankfull mean DEPTH, in a riffle section. 14.14
Maximum DEPTH (dmbkf)
Maximum depth of the bankfull channel cross-section, or distance between the
bankfull stage and Thalweg elevations, in a riffle section. 0.57
WIDTH of Flood -Prone Area (Wfpa)
Twice maximum DEPTH, or (2 x dmbkf) = the stage/elevation at which flood -prone area
WIDTH is determined in a riffle section. 7.24
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
The ratio of flood -prone area WIDTH divided by bankfull channel WIDTH (Wfpa/ Wbkf)
(riffle section). 1.83
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index ) Dso
The D50 particle size index represents the mean diameter of channel materials, as
sampled from the channel surface, between the bankfull stage and Thalweg
elevations. 0.06
Water Surface SLOPE (S)
Channel slope ='rise over run" for a reach approximately 20-30 bankfull channel
widths in length, with the 'riffle -to -riffle" water surface slope representing the gradient
at bankfull stage. 0.01482
Channel SINUOSITY (k)
Sinuosity is an index of channel pattern, determined from a ratio of stream length
divided by valley length (SL / VL); or estimated from a ratio of valley slope divided by
channel slope (VS / S). 1.35
Stream I B 6C (See Figure 2-14)
Type > <
ft
ft/ft
ft/ft
mm
Copyright © 2006 W ildland Hydrology River Stability Field Guide page 2-60

Worksheet 3-14. Sediment competence calculation form to assess bed stability.
Stream: Pond Restoration Stream Type: B 5c
Location: Reach 1 (Lower) Valley Type: C -AL -FD
Observers: Date: 10/24/2018
Enter Required Information for Existing Condition
0.2
D50
Median particle size of riffle bed material (mm)
0.1
D"5"0
Median particle size of bar or sub -pavement sample (mm)
0.148
D max
Largest particle from bar sample (ft)
45
(mm)
304.8
m m/ft
mm/ft
0.01482
S
Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
0.37
d
Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
1.65
7S-7/7
Immersed specific gravity of sediment
Select the Appropriate Equation and Calculate Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
3.17
D501so
Range: 3 — 7 Use EQUATION 1: ti* = 0.0834 ( DsoIDs) 0.872
236.84
D max/D 50
Range: 1.3 — 3.0 Use EQUATION 2: �* = 0.0384 (D max/D 50) —0.887
0.031
Bankfull Dimensionless Shear Stress
EQUATION USED:
1
Calculate Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.50
d
21 Dmax
Required bankfull mean depth (ft) d = (7, (use Dmax in ft)
S
Calculate Bankfull Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.02010
S
2 1 Dmax
Required bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft) S — �Y5 (use D max in ft)
d
Check: W, Stable F_ Aggrading f Degrading
Sediment Competence Using Dimensional Shear Stress
0.342
Bankfull shear stress T = ydS (lbs/ft2) (substitute hydraulic radius, R, with mean depth, d )
= 62.4, d = existing depth, S = existing slope
Shields
25.5
co
69.08
Predicted largest moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress i (Figure 3-11)
Shields
0.59
co
0.191
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of measured Dmax (mm) (Figure 3-11)
Shields
0.64
co
0.21
Predicted mean depth required to initiate movement of measured Dmax (mm) _ Z
= predicted shear stress, Y = 62.4, S = existing slope d YS
Shields
0.0256
co
0.0083
Predicted slope required to initiate movement of measured Dmax (mm) S _ 2
= predicted shear stress, Y = 62.4, d = existing depth yd
Check: 7v Stable F_ Aggrading F- Degrading
Copyright© 2008 Wildland Hydrology River Stability Field Guide page 3-101

Worksheet 3-21. Summary of stability condition categories.
Copyright © 2008 Wildland Hydrology River Stability Field Guide page 3-122
A
B I C I D I E IF I G I H I I I J I K I L I M IN 101 P IQ I R I S IT I U V W1 X I Y I ZIAAIABIACIADIAEIAFIAGIAH I AIIAJIAKIALI AM
1
Stream:
Pond Restoration Location: Reach 1 (Lower)
2
Observers:
Date:
10/24/2018 Stream Type:
B 5C Valley Type:
C -AL -FD
3
Channel Dimension
Mean Bankfull
Depth (ft): 0'28
Bankfull Width
(ft): 3'96
Cross -Sectional
Area ft2 : 1.1
Width/Depth
Ratio: 14.14
Entrenchment
Ratio: 1.83
4
5
Channel Pattern
Streamflow
Mean:
Range]
2.27 4.34
2.02-2.53 2.02-2.53 Lm/Wbkr• 2.78 - 6.31
2.271.48
R�/Wb 1.77-3 . 03
MWR. 1.14-1.77
Sinuosity: 1.35
6
7
Bankfull Mean
3.87
Velocity (Qbkf) (ft/sec):
Bankfull
4.2997
Discharge (Qbkf):
Estimation
Manning
Method:
Drainage Area
2 0.129
mi :
8
9
check: 1 1`3 Riffle/Pool Step/Pool f Plane Bed F__ ConvergencelDivergence 7 Dunes/Antidunes/Smooth Bed
10
River Profile & Bed
Features
M ax Riffle Pool
Bankfull i
0.57 1.06
Depth (ft):
Depth Ratio (max: Riffle I Pool
iWater
to mean): 2,04 3.79
Pool -t0- i Ratio
Pool :4975
Spacing:Surface:
Slope
11
Valley:70.02
;
0.00995
12
13
Level III Stream
Stability Indices
Riparian Current Composition/Density:
Potential Composition/Density: Remarks: C)ndition, Vigor & Usage of Existing Reach:
14
Vegetation
15
Flow
Regime:
Stream Size
& Order:
Meander Depositional
Patterns: Patterns:
Debris/Channel
Blockages:
16
17
Degree of Incision
(Bank -Height Ratio):
Degree of Incision
Stability Rating:
Modified Pfankuch Stability Rating
(Numeric & Adjective Rating):
18
19
Width/depth
Ratio (W/d):
Reference W/d
Ratio (W/d):
Width/Depth Ratio State (Wid)
I (VV/d,.,):
W/d Ratio State
Stability Rating:
20
21
Meander Width
Ratio (M WR):
Reference
MWR,d:
Degree of confinement (IM WR
MWRd):
MWR / MWRref
Stability Rating:
22
23
Bank Erosion
Summary
Length of Reach Annual Streambank Erosion Rate- Curve Used: Remarks:
Studied (ft): (tonsNr)(tons/yurt) 7
F Sufficient Capacity - Insufficient Capacity r Excess Capacity
Largest Particle from _ Existing Required 1. Existing Required
Bar Sample (mm): T- depth: Depth: Slope: Slope:
111o, 10 Existing Stream Potential Stream
State (Type): B 5c State (Type):
24
25
Sediment CapacityRemarks:
(POWERSED)
Entrainment/
Competence
26
27
28
Successional Stage
Shift
29
30
Lateral Stability
r Stable r_ Mod. Unstable
I I IVertical
r Unstable r Highly Unstable
Remarks/causes:
31
StabilityRemarks/causes:
(Aggradation)
r No Deposition r Mod. Deposition r Ex. Deposition r Aggradation
32
Vertical StabilityRemarks/causes:
(Degradation)
r Not Incised
r Slightly Incised
r Mod. Incised
r Degradation
Remarks/causes:
1
33
Channel Enlargement
f' No Increase r Slight Increase r Mod. Increase 17- Extensive
34
Sediment Supply
(Channel Source)1
,
r Low
I
Hr
Moderate High r Very High
Remarks/causes:
35
Copyright © 2008 Wildland Hydrology River Stability Field Guide page 3-122

Area (sq ft) vs. Drainage Area (sq mi)
10000
♦ NC Mountain&Piedmont
1000
opl
N
f6
100
Q
10 ♦
■ Eastem United States
LLI1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq mi)

Mean Depth (ft) vs. Drainage Area (sq mi)
10
t
♦
n
♦
♦ NC Mountain&Piedmont
N
♦
♦
lo
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq mi)

Width (ft) vs. Drainage Area (sq mi)
1000-
100—
t ♦ NC Mountain&Piedmont
A Al
10
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq mi)

Discharge
(cfs) vs. Drainage Area (sq mi)
100000-
0000010000
10000—
A
♦ NC Mountain&Piedmont
W
v 1000
d)
f6
L
N_
100
10
■ North Carolina and Tennessee
1
1
N7
1
10 100
1000
0.1
Drainage
Area (sq mi)

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT F
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Cumulative Impact Analysis for Adjoining Property
(Meridale; SAW -2007-01172 )

Cumulative Impact Analysis - Adjoining Meridale Subdivision (SAW -2007-01172 and
SAW -2007-02480)
Permitted Impacts (2007)
The previous 404 permit verification, dated September 24, 2007, authorized 135 If permanent
stream impacts and 0.087 acre of permanent wetland impacts for the purpose of road
construction associated with the residential development currently referred as Meridale. This
permit expired September 24, 2009.
Actual Impacts by 2018
Wetland Impacts: Based on historic aerial maps, authorized wetland impacts (0.087 acre)
were completed prior the permit expired. These impacts will be counted cumulatively to the new
proposed wetland impacts.
Stream Impacts: There were two bottomless culverts located between Meridale Forest Drive
and Hartington Place that run underneath Allen A Brown Road. The culvert closest to Meridale
Forest Drive is approximately 79 feet long, and the culvert closest to Harington Place is
approximately 62 feet long. These two bottomless culverts appeared to be installed between
2015 and 2016. Photographs 1-6 are representative of these culverts. Since the culverts that
were installed are bottomless, there are no stream impacts that would be cumulative to the new
proposed subdivision (currently referred as Cheyney).
Attachments: 404 Permit Verification (September 24, 2007)
Meridale - Proposed Impact Figures (2007)
Photographs of Bottomless Culverts within Meridale (1-6)
Aerial Map with Photo Locations

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. SAW -2007-02480 County: Mecklenburg USGS Quad: Derita
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Youngs Pond, LLC, Att'n: Mr. Bart Hopper
Address: 1518 East 3`d Street
Suite 2C
Charlotte, NC 28204
Telephone No.:.
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): Youngs Pond / Meridale S/D, Phase I & 2,
located on a 108 acre tract accessed off of Allen A. Brown Road; near Huntersville
Description of projects area and activity: Impact 135 LF of an intermittent, UT -Clarks Creek and 0.087 acre of
wetlands for the purpose of road construction associated with a proposed residential development.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 29
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Steve Chapin.
Corps Regulatory Official Steve Chapin Date: 9/24/07
Expiration Date of Verification: 9/24/09
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so,
please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit hq://www.saw.usace.army.miI/WETLANDS/index.htmI to
complete the survey online.
Page 1 of 2

rA
Determination of Jurisdiction:
❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project area.
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be retied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section
444 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued . Action iD
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: Clarks Creek>Rocky River>Yadkin River which is navigable -in -fact at Blewett Falls dam
in N.C.
Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations.)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved jurisdictional
determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process
(NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA
form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn:Steve Chapin, Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 11124147.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA forma to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence, —
Corps Regulatory Official: Steve Cha in
Date 9124107
Expiration Date 9/24/2012
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished:
Estes Design, P.Q. Sox 79133, Charlotte, NC 28271-7050
Page 2 of 2

TREE SAVE AREA CALCULATIONS:
AREA A = 20,763 SQ.FT.
AREA 8 - 47,007 SOFT.
AREA C = 5,559 SOFT.
AREA D = 104,996 SO.FT.
AREA E - 49,639 SOFT.
AREA F = 24,608 SOFT.
AREA G = 19,253 SOFT.
AREA H = 5,159 SOFT.
AREA 1 = 22,179 SOFT.
AREA J = 1,671 SO.FT.
AREA K = 2,333 SOFT.
AREA L = 58,334 SO.FT.
AREA M - 16,394 SOFT.
AREA N = 4,089 SQ.FT.
AREA 0 = 9,989 SQ.FT.
AREA P - 11,910 SOFT.
AREA 0 = 2,911 SO.FT.
AREA R = 10,097 SO.FT.
TOTAL = 416,891 SOFT
(9.57 AC) 10.70%
STORM WATER PROTECTION ELEVATIONS (SWPE)
MINIMUM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS (FFE) TABLE FOR THOSE
LOTS WHERE 100+1 BUILDING RESTRICTION FLOODUNE ENCROACHES
LOT 22=764.00 LOT 74-778.00 LOT 85=770.00 LOT 996:7663.75 LOT 41-755.25
LOT 23-763.00 LOT 75=778.00 LOT 86-7668.00 LOT 7=73.75 LOT 42-755.25
877750 LOT 8764.50 LOT 43-757.00LOT 24=762.50 LOT 7677500 LOT
- T 88=766.75 LOT 99=766.75 LOT 44-760.50LOT 25=762.00 LOT 775 =764.50 LOT 100=767.50LOT 26760.50 LOT 78=775.00 LOT 89
1-77 90=763..75 LOT 01=768LOT 27=759.75 LOT 79 9176275 LOT LOT 28-758.75 LOT 80-774.00 LOT 106=772 50
LOT 29-758.50 LOT 81=773.00 LOT 92-760.50 LOT 107=772.50
LOT 30=755.50 LOT 82=773.00 LOT 93=761.50 LOT 56=766.75
LOT 31-755.50 LOT 83=773.00 LOT 94=762.50 LOT 57-766.75
LOT 32=755.75 LOT 84=771.00 LOT 95=762.75 LOT 58=766.75
IZ
!OTE,
1.) ALL DESIGNATED TREE SAVE AREAS ARE
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT
COMMON OPEN SPACE.
2.) COMMON OPEN SPACE - 11.84 AC.
OR 13.16% TOTAL PROPERTY.
3.) FOR ADDITIONAL ROADWAY AND STORM
DRAINAGE INFORMATION - SEE SHEETS
C-5.0 THRU C-6.6.
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IX PLX7 )
1 inch - 100 R.
PERCENT OF TOTAL
2
NET AREA (89.51 AC)
(0.48 AC)
0.54%
(1.08 AC)
1.21%
(0.13 AC)
0.15%
(2.41 AC)
2.69%
(1.14 AC)
1.27%
(0.56 AC)
0.63%
(0.44 AC)
0.49%
(0.12 AC)
0.13%
(0.51 AC)
0.57%
(0.04 AC)
0.04%
(0.05 AC)
0.06%
(1.34 AC)
1.50%
(0.38 AC)
0.42%
(0.09 AC)
0.10%
(0.23 AC)
0.26%
(0.27 AC)
0.30%
(0.07 AC)
0.08%
(0.23 AC)
0.26%
(9.57 AC) 10.70%
STORM WATER PROTECTION ELEVATIONS (SWPE)
MINIMUM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS (FFE) TABLE FOR THOSE
LOTS WHERE 100+1 BUILDING RESTRICTION FLOODUNE ENCROACHES
LOT 22=764.00 LOT 74-778.00 LOT 85=770.00 LOT 996:7663.75 LOT 41-755.25
LOT 23-763.00 LOT 75=778.00 LOT 86-7668.00 LOT 7=73.75 LOT 42-755.25
877750 LOT 8764.50 LOT 43-757.00LOT 24=762.50 LOT 7677500 LOT
- T 88=766.75 LOT 99=766.75 LOT 44-760.50LOT 25=762.00 LOT 775 =764.50 LOT 100=767.50LOT 26760.50 LOT 78=775.00 LOT 89
1-77 90=763..75 LOT 01=768LOT 27=759.75 LOT 79 9176275 LOT LOT 28-758.75 LOT 80-774.00 LOT 106=772 50
LOT 29-758.50 LOT 81=773.00 LOT 92-760.50 LOT 107=772.50
LOT 30=755.50 LOT 82=773.00 LOT 93=761.50 LOT 56=766.75
LOT 31-755.50 LOT 83=773.00 LOT 94=762.50 LOT 57-766.75
LOT 32=755.75 LOT 84=771.00 LOT 95=762.75 LOT 58=766.75
IZ
!OTE,
1.) ALL DESIGNATED TREE SAVE AREAS ARE
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT
COMMON OPEN SPACE.
2.) COMMON OPEN SPACE - 11.84 AC.
OR 13.16% TOTAL PROPERTY.
3.) FOR ADDITIONAL ROADWAY AND STORM
DRAINAGE INFORMATION - SEE SHEETS
C-5.0 THRU C-6.6.
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IX PLX7 )
1 inch - 100 R.
SHEET
C-2.1
i
VV
CC�p
2
C
A�
rB
C
Z
_ n
SHEET
C-2.1
CIS
a
w�
g
W
�W
p4
.y
-v
,'+
'Q•J����i^�':
3; v
sEK
a`o ,vase a;
SHEET
C-2.1

LEGEND
CEO
--® EE
ADOrn2rLw �� PROTECTCH_ANUaaAuw+o,+errWa t �'
IWIIWCLYIr+�il►11rY/wq�9MP[AIc,NIIJ *L s! 1
rx�onan.roaoerar�nvran.anu wn_
arw.rrlr // b '
L a..u�vrc+rnrw ra�n�s,e rte.cmwicN�r rHrOeweal.Oln rroMlr.erwrraciNvree 1 � , � � �
rrrad ar wn+.ww. cwrwemon *o ul mnTr c bVW1%L .aamio THE
MM
FOA
aNnlvit,MrE olwMa efAIt1M14NOS To r�atr'rM• boeyrReGilpK ie//. T+R r9�. Fr`rrrS r/li Ki rw�rrY•Wlrn� ` 1
W/111_�4,`r�yy''.['�N1rILMO MGr4rt1�® NO11WO1M111Ml�MRI.MIji►1"OR1' Av. 1..Ypi
a npet�iWf erm din/Yar,ye dFu nw me . M nnra"a RrRwesIaAT na
altl"x,Y1WL RVISAim ec11 M [aMLie`lCTedep Lon \ '
•r1V6 T 101wCF11br OF U/,K't NaJIriE w N IqT Kd'f Mn FfmQ TO W1 --Wm W me MO,F w T
t .s wBr�ul MtlL1 Wle nawNCdlAolMo 1F Wrr11�Ar�l allll.fr /+� LAa.
l 11.s ,g1LKr1aMf�fIGYMOM irIrYWlrr 'l MM11.ta"
N�tl�d'i OLGlWy��iO.Y[dlMak ` �.
� ,oa�arwT. rNvd.rw n.a.r+wovK•,eeu,rta t � F 1' l r.n � ��—''—_ „r'"' +r '
,. a��ior�f,r �� srr� c�w,ee � airre, i • ' , � l • `_ � � — — � * . r ` 1 J .1 1, 1 •.
. ' wsu `+aawzo�+s�rer n�.vor rw+u611640°
. w+e. 11�94.ownro1AJga.r..rb
aiUwwnUMTImOA0F
sianewwun aerarnrw
STORM49
ORiAWAOE TABLE: r eax ] 1 ?
,man• l s
g
WIFTLAMT0111JOW
Fm 1�en
to numft s rti� ` �- -+ i
•,rn a. r WOMAWOmr� •�� 1mf
Lp
1w � T.• . v M w • taw is ry � r � ``— - f � `I
LcS+ }�=:-J�
"r`waa�n�r a� �.� . `� �� i 1 f ] I ] i ] 1 rrf.� 'r , r • f'
I Of
Uiaw
i 1 Arevnrna r � �
� w ,ws ,w• M r w wo ..n as _ � �r f ` ' � � . r �� � r ' �eae6is ,' �"wn'n° � 1 t�
- w n�m.,wr.,.a.�e 1 ] 1 • 1 � � I r X � , , ,1 � 1 I �'I,' ' � a
� f - 4 ..se�amr ae
ow -
w IL C"
a1r'
Ar
�, s. nr �. .,.. �.. r' • r r . 49] nip
f� ref • , it ares!' 1 �� i' ewers
r s ,'moi rialr,�sri ce°�rrte 4r
1 +lF+l 1 1
NOTE. I,.auowa.eu caenaxir v.110n r J J •/
f.+e t�� J � f �w Gre:e.,,O61rl IIa�7Tl
naiw� G•p•MWN NQ TD rte-s*.u)�.ER CYDr RO.W 1
t
Tom recd
mr
AB OA ea
' � � a � � • err r
w tar aar
5
GRADING
PLAN
a�
6
it
crr.,. gr SSW
SSW
CMfaiEry
,P*[ Nur bw
owls
Sera wxrt.r
L3.0
a�
6
it
crr.,. gr SSW
SSW
CMfaiEry
,P*[ Nur bw
owls
Sera wxrt.r
L3.0

LOT 89
LOT 9❑
1 .
I,I \
PROP. SAN. SWR. UIVE-- L
a
LOT 91
EXIST. SAN. SWR. LINE \
�s
P MH
96 • 135 Lr\ Q DISTURBANCE
EXIST. PERENNIAL 5 FAM • TO IN RMI N STREAM '
SUBJECT TO 35 s .I.M. \ X60'
BUFFER PER MECKLENB RG • .
COUNTY i6Is
15' UPLAND ZONE (TYP. ) , , • -
20' UNDISTURBED. y 56
STREAMSIDE ZONE {7YP.} \ • `'
b ck
EXIST, INTERMITTENT
STREAM
LOT 59
• x.427 OP. DITCH
`
�� EXIST.
`
�
SUBDIVISION s
EXIST. EPHEMERAL
LOT 58 I o STREAM
• ' EXIST. INTERMITTENT
STREAMS
• ' PROP. 1O'XIWX1'
lool 1 • • CLASS RIP RAP PAD
l 1 LOT 55
1 GRADING U (TYP.) ^�
LOT 58
I�•1 � n n
YY E PROP. 54" R
CC
c
0)
LOT 57
c8 PROP. 30'X 18'X 1'
CLASS 1 RIP RAP P
LOT 45
ttin 'ss
-Part v► Les' GucX �. IJ d pg
11
PROPERTY
BOUNEARY
de �
xs a
+ L
co
o
W
g
��-C �V
rn tj
R�
(_p
Ln
U
r V
GRAPHIC SCALE
40 so b
(nrnw)
1 laah - 40 &

PROP. SAN. SWR. LINE
1
PSSMH '
g PCB
15" SCP ~ 15- �P.
1 �
C.O.S. --
lb
,�b 181
SbLATIa) I
EXIST.
180 , WETLAND
pSSMH
1
179
ivil
1, 023SF,
REMOVED
PADS
177
WCH
196
a
v
co
197
GRADING LIMITS (7YP. )
r 10' PROTECTIVE
/ UNDISTURBED BU
175 R
�ry 198
�
20.082SF. 0. 6 1AC
UNDESTURBE PRESERVED
784
176
3AC
' BUILDING
AUTUMN PARK Ci
� 4 �
r
w + E
GRAPHIC SCALE
q 0 fG b
(m FEET)
1 inah 40 !L
S
'Z
4 Cq
� cn
00
,-
Ln

YESjjffM ELEVA YXK
f 2 R
DU IY$T HPt'�47i��
�fi �s� � f;ef�t'r�n�s Gut,���'

Meridale October 31, 2018
Bottomless Culverts CWS Project No. 2018-0103
AL
l
�: y �. is •' ~ fie. ,,� �, � �M
Photograph 1. View of the 62 If culvert inlet, facing south. Permitted as a box culvert in 2007.
Photograph 2. View of the inside of the 62 If culvert, facing south. Permitted as a box culvert in 2007.
Photopage 1 of 3

Meridale
Bottomless Culverts
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Photograph 3. View of the 62 If culvert outlet, facing north. Permitted as a box culvert in 2007.
Photograph 4. View of the 79 If culvert inlet, facing south. Labeled as a bottomless culvert in 2007 permit.
Photopage 2 of 3

:Y';• _ii..� � ` #1 � r "fir ;'y" � 1
'yi► k � � lbw- .r f� .'1 _ .C� .
t; k1 `,`� � tiff :. r� .►
r
1 ie -

GATeam Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\Permit (NWP 29)WcGIS\Photomap.mxd

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT G:
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
April 24, 2018
Mr. Bob Wiggins
Vice President, Land
Mattamy Homes
2127 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 201
Charlotte, NC 28273
Subject: Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
Cheyney
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Dear Mr. Wiggins,
Mattamy Homes has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide a protected
species habitat assessment for Cheyney site. The Cheyney site (Mecklenburg County Tax
Parcel Nos. 02762101, 02762102, 02761168, 02718125, 02718126, 02718185, and partial
02718103) is approximately 163 acres in extent and is located east of the Independence Hill Rd.
and Arthur Davis Rd. intersection, in unincorporated Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(Figure 1).
Methods
In -office Desktop Review
To determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially occurring within the
project vicinity, and prior to conducting the on-site field investigation, CWS consulted the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of
Concern by County for North Carolina online database for Mecklenburg County'. In addition,
CWS performed a data review using the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
Data Explorer on April 18, 2018 to determine if any record occurrences of federally -listed,
candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat are located within the project
limits.
Typical habitat requirements for listed species was discerned from multiple USFWS' and
NCNHP' online resources including, but not limited to, specific USFWS species profiles,
recovery plans, NCNHP Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of
North Carolina, and List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. United States Department
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office. Updated March 26, 2018. Endangered and Threatened Species
and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.html
Z North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer. Accessed March 16, 2018. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/.
3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant
Species. http://www.fws.gov/nces/es/plant_Survey.html. Accessed March 16, 2018.
° Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. NC Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Accessed from https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 8

Cheyney
Protected Species Assessment Report
April 24, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Soil Survey of
Mecklenburg County5 and aerial imagery were also reviewed for potential habitat communities
of listed species within the project vicinity (Figures 2 and 3).
Field Survey
CWS Senior Scientist, Sean Martin, conducted a pedestrian habitat assessment of the project
area on April 18, 2018. Supportive habitats for potentially occurring federally -protected species
that were identified during the desktop review were assessed in the field for the quality of
physical and/or biological features essential to the conservation of the applicable species.
Additionally, during the pedestrian habitat assessment, areas were reviewed for the presence of
federally protected species. However, formal surveys were not conducted for the occurence of
protected species. Identification references for land cover types include the National Land
Cover Database (2011)6.
Results
Based on the NCNHP data explorer review, there are no current records of federally -protected
species within the project limits or within a mile of the project limits (Attachment A). The
USFWS lists seven federally protected species for Mecklenburg County (Table 1). An official
species list has not been obtained from the USFWS Asheville Field Office.
Table 1. Unofficial List of Federally -Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the
Cheyney site, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status*
Record Status
Plant
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
E
Current
schweinitzii
sunflower
Plant
Echinacea
Smooth coneflower
E
Current
laevigata
Plant
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Current
Animal
Lasmigona
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Current
decorata
Animal
Bombus affinis
Rusty -patched
E
Historic
bumble bee
Animal
Myotis
Northern -long-eared
T
Probable/potential
septentrionalis
bat
Animal
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
BGPA
Current
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Four land cover types were identified within the project area during the field survey. These land
cover types consist of Shrub/Scrub, Cultivated Crops, Deciduous Forest, and Developed, Low
Intensity (Figure 3). Of the identified on-site land cover types, Deciduous Forest and
Shrub/Scrub are considered potential habitat for federally threatened or endangered species
United States Department of Agriculture, 2013. USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Accessed
4/5/18. Source: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
s MLRC. National Land Cover Database, 2011. https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcdll_leg.php
Page 2 of 8

Cheyney
Protected Species Assessment Report
April 24, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
that could potentially occur within the project limits. A brief description of each species habitat
requirements and determination of effect findings are listed below, by species.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Habitat Description:
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb with yellow rays and yellow centers. They
can reach heights of five feet. Populations are limited to the piedmont of North and
South Carolina. It has been listed as an Endangered species under the ESA since 1991.
The typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line
right-of-ways, open areas, either natural or human -maintained habitats, or edges of
upland woods. Major characteristics of soils associated with suitable Schweinitz's
sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes,
soils that are clay -like in both composition and texture (and often with substantial rock
fragments), soils that have a high shrinkage swell capacity, and those which vary over
the course of the year from very wet to very dry.
Biological Analysis:
Potential on-site habitat for this species is limited to the fringe areas between cultivated
crop fields and forested areas (Figure 3, Photograph 2, attached). The desktop review
and field survey assessment found that these fringe areas do not have the proper soils
to support the Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower or other
Helianthus species were observed during the field assessment on April 18, 2018.
Potential habitat areas are very poor quality due to evidence of herbicide spraying
activities and non-native/invasive species competition; no known population records of
the species occurs within one mile of the project boundary, based on the NHP records
review. These findings lead CWS to conclude that the project will not affect the
Schweinitz's sunflower.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevi_ aceta)
Habitat Description:
Smooth coneflower is a tall, perennial herbaceous plant found in areas with abundant
sunlight where competition in the herbaceous layer is minimal. It has been federally
listed as Endangered under the ESA since 1992.$ Typical habitat for this plant includes
meadows, open woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands,
cedar barrens, dry limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights-of-way. In
North Carolina, the species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium- rich soils
associated with gabbro and diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell,
Misenheimer, and Picture soil series. It grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little
competition in the herbaceous layer, and periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime,
well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that prevents encroachment of shade -producing
woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody succession is held in check, it is
characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.
United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/frl852.pdf.
8 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Echinacea laevigata (Smooth
Coneflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/fed era l_register/fr2140.pdf.
Page 3 of 8

Cheyney April 24, 2018
Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed no current occurrences for this species within the
project limits or within a one -mile radius of the project boundary (Attachment A). Though
disturbed shrub/scrub and fringe areas, conducive to early -succession species, are
present in the project area, these areas consist of saprolite and residuum weathered
soils, absent of magnesium and calcium, and are therefore not suitable for smooth
coneflower.' No individuals of smooth coneflower were observed during the field
assessment on April 18, 2018. Potential fringe habitat areas are very poor quality due to
evidence of herbicide spraying activities and non-native/invasive species competition.
These findings lead CWS to conclude that the project will not affect the smooth
coneflower.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Habitat Description:
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous shrub that is densely hairy with compound leaves
exhibiting evenly -serrated leaflets. Flowers are small, greenish to white, that form in
terminal clusters. Fruits are red drupes produced between August and October.
Michaux's sumac has been listed as an Endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) since 1989.10 It is found in the piedmont and coastal plains of Virginia
to Florida, with most populations occurring in North Carolina. It prefers sandy or rocky
open woods with basic pH soils, as well as, highway right-of-ways, roadsides, or edges
of artificially -maintained clearings.
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed no current occurrences for this species within the
project limits or within a one -mile radius of the project boundary (Attachment A). Though
disturbed open areas conducive to early -succession species are present in the project
area, these areas consist of soils that are not suitable for Michaux's sumac (Figure 2).
Additionally the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office states in its Michaux's sumac
profile page that the species is considered historic in Mecklenburg County11. Due to
poorly supporting soils, poor quality potential habitat areas, and no known occurrences
in the project region, CWS concludes that this project will not affect Michaux's
sumac.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Habitat Description:
The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations within the
Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah
River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North
Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and
United States Department of Agriculture, 2013. USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Accessed
4/5/18. Source: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
10 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered
Status for Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac). http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federaI_register/fr1601.pdf.
Suiter, Dale. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Raleigh Ecological Services Field, USFWS. Michaux's Sumac Species Profile page. Last
updated August 24, 2017. Accessed April 5, 2018 https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_michauxs_sumac.html
Page 4 of 8

Cheyney
Protected Species Assessment Report
April 24, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Catawba River systems. The species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet
of shorelines, throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the
Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed
into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with
moderate current. Recently, the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in sections of
streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with sand and gravel, and
with wide riparian buffers. 12
Biological Analysis:
A pedestrian foot survey conducted on April 18, 2018 revealed three perennial streams
within the project limits. On-site streams are connected to downstream waters (Clarks
Creek) via a pipe on Browne Rd., which does not provide a suitable connection to
downstream waters that Carolina heelsplitter could utilize during its reproductive phase.
Additionally, on-site streams are highly unstable with eroded stream banks and high
sedimentation loads, which are not conducive to heelsplitter habitat. No heelsplitters
were observed on-site during the site visit on April 18, 2018 (Photographs 3 and 4). Due
to the break in biological connectivity to downstream waters and a lack of habitat, CWS
concludes that this project will not affect the Carolina heelsplitter.
Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)
The Rusty patched bumble bee was listed as Endangered under the ESA in January 2017.13
Rusty patched bumble bees once occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies of the Upper
Midwest and Northeast, but most grasslands and prairies have been lost, degraded, or
fragmented by conversion to other uses. According to USFWS guidance, "the rusty patched
bumble bee is likely to be present in scattered locations that cover only about 0.1 % of the
species' historical range. It is within these limited areas USFWS recommend that federal
agencies and others consider the need to consult with the Service on the potential effects of
their actions or the potential need for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B). For
the remaining 99.9% of the historical range, USFWS advise agencies and others that this
bumble bee is not likely to be present and that consultations or incidental take coverage is not
necessary. 04 According to USFWS' Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Interactive Map, Mecklenburg
County is not within the 0.1 % historical range as no high potential zones or low potential zones
are present within Mecklenburg County. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the
rusty -patched bumble bee.
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the
white -nose syndrome disease. Summer habitat (roosting habitat) of the NLEB includes forests
and woodlots containing live trees and/or dead snags greater than three inches diameter at
breast height with cavities or crevices. Winter habitat (hibernacula) of the NLEB includes caves,
12 NCDOT TE Animal Habitat Descriptions. 2015.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20Procedures/TE%2OAnimal°/`2OHabitat%
20Descriptions%2OMar_6_2015.pdf
s United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
14 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
Page 5 of 8

Cheyney
Protected Species Assessment Report
April 24, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
mines, rocky areas, or structures that mimic similar conditions such as culverts greater than
48 -inch in diameter.15 The NLEB was listed as Threatened (T) on April 2, 2015.
The forested areas within the property are potential habitats for the NLEB. A Standard Local
Operating Procedure for Endangered Species Act Compliance (SLOPES) was established for
NLEB between the USFWS Asheville and Raleigh Ecological Offices and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, on January 31, 2017.16 This SLOPES
defines how the USACE will make determinations of effect to the NLEB on projects in which the
USACE is the lead federal agency. Alternative Local Procedure 1 (ALP 1) applies for the
Cheyney site as the action area is within range of the NLEB,17 the action area is located outside
of a red 12 -digit HUC as defined by the Asheville Ecological Services Field Office,18 and
consultation by the USACE is required on other listed species or critical habitat.
The final 4(d) rule exempts incidental take of NLEB associated with activities that occur greater
than 0.25 miles from a known hibernaculum site and greater than 150 feet from a known,
occupied maternity roost from June 1 -July 31. In accordance with ALP 1 and the final 4(d) rule
(effective as of February 16, 2016), any incidental take that may result from associated activities
is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Therefore, this project is exempt under the 4(d) rule.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,19 enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone, without a
permit issued, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Habitat for the
bald eagle includes cliffs and forested areas typically within 1.0 mile of estuaries, large lakes,
reservoirs, rivers, seacoast, and as they become more abundant, stands of undisturbed forest.
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1 mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on April 5, 2018 using 2017 color aerials. No water bodies
large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified.
Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area
and the area within the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP
database on April 18, 2018 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences, CWS concludes that
this project will not affect the bald eagle.
Summary
Based on the literature search and the results of the on-site assessment for suitable habitat of
federally -protected endangered, and threatened species, suitable habitat was observed for the
smooth coneflower. However, suitable habitat areas for the smooth coneflower are very poor
quality with high degrees of non-native/invasive species competition, and there are active
negative impacting activities to supporting habitat due to herbicide spraying from intensive
farming on adjoining pasture areas. Suitable habitat was not observed within the project limits
for smooth coneflower, Michaux's sumac, bald eagle, or Carolina heelsplitter. Additionally, the
15 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long -Eared Bat; Final rule.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-14/pdf/2016-00617.pdf
16 USACE http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
17 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
16 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. Northern Long -Eared Bat.
19 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/eaglepermits/bagepa.htmi
Page 6 of 8

Cheyney
Protected Species Assessment Report
April 24, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
project area is not located within the 0.1 % historical range of the rusty -patched bumble bee.
CWS has concluded that activities within the project area will not directly or indirectly jeopardize
the continued existence of Schweinitz's sunflower, the smooth coneflower, Michaux's sumac,
bald eagle, rusty -patched bumble bee, and Carolina heelsplitter. Additionally, based on the
project area location, no tree removal activities will occur within a 150 -foot radius of a known,
occupied NLEB maternity roost from June 1 -July 31, and no trees will be removed within 0.25
miles of a known hibernaculum at any time of year. Therefore, any incidental take on NLEB that
may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule and notifications will follow
the SLOPES agreement20. Biological determinations requirements for federally protected
species are summarized in Table 2 (below).
Table 2. Biological Determination Requirements Summary Table for Federally Protected Species
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
" - Required in accordance with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
20 http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB_in_WNC.html
Page 7 of 8
Federal
Effect on Listed
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status*
Species
Determination
Required
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Will Not Affect
No
Echinacea /aevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
Will Not Affect
No
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Will Not Affect
No
Lasmigona decorata
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Will Not Affect
No
Bombus affinis
Rusty -patched bumble bee
E
Will Not Affect
No
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern -long-eared bat
T
Exempt/Excepted
Yes**
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
BGPA
Will Not Affect
No
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
" - Required in accordance with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
20 http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB_in_WNC.html
Page 7 of 8

Cheyney
Protected Species Assessment Report
Conclusion
April 24, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103
CWS has completed a protected species habitat assessment for Cheyney site; a biological
assessment was not conducted for this project. All biological determinations of effect represent
the best professional opinion of CWS and are not official determinations of effect. It is the
responsibility of the lead federal agency to render an official determination of effect. Should the
lead federal agency agree with CWS's initial findings of no effect, then no USFWS consultation
is required to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Should the lead federal
agency's determination of effect differ from the findings of CWS, formal or informal consultation
with USFWS may be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not
hesitate to contact Sean Martin at 828-719-1320 or [e-mail] should you have any
questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
5e�, 0 OA -A
Sean Martin
Senior Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Site Location
Christine A. Geist, PWS, CE
Principal Scientist
Figure 2: USDA-NRCS Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
Figure 3: Habitat Community Types
Attachment A: NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment B: Representative Photographs (1-4)
Page 8 of 8

^ a
orrence Creek_ -_ G,
� o
--- -- � JC I__--- � ONPP� ',�� X04' "•x' �
�C
�-
I yN � � / � � ' - .
John Md(nitt \ -- 1 1�' \ _% ,�- w?;0
Alexander
Mid Sch m�Ot t
r V
HAMBRfGHTRD �1
-
Leg
ette
Elem Sch:
-
� QQ/ t✓� W -' � I / � /y
---�
o r ,\�
N Mecklenburg HS: '� V i _
0
`O
r_' 2
W
_HALLENTA7E. IR NWY
H.AL[EN.TATE RHWY ,,,e,LtrN.rATE; JR.Hv ri 1
N
O R
VANCE DAVO'R _____—'-
y II
METRO NTIlk�"-
RK Y;;
2 o c, ;
=o
U
0
8 r 'S. 1
Oq Cr
_ r
Couhmundy-
/',,., "'l ' •. Sch
1
Legend
`.A S
Project Limits (163 ac.)
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): DERITA, NC AND CORNELIUS, NC(2017). -
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 10/11/2018 USGS Site Location
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 1
2018-0103 MLS Cheyney
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: Of
CARO L 1 N A Mecklenburg County
35.361947, -80.815124 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 3
GATeam Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\PETS\ArcGIS\Figurel_USGS.mxd

C.l CeD
eB2 PaE CeD2 Al HeB CeD2 PaE
eD2
f
CeD2 C
HeB
He
Ce
eB2_ eD2
'✓ EnD
HeB
aD CeD2
eB2
CeD2 CeD2
EnB
VaD HeB
- MeB
MID
1
Va Wk P nD IrB/
ApD
MeD IrB
CeD2 t
32 eB
CeD
MeD ( MeB CeB2
MeB �� eB ,
MO En
MeD EnB '
CeD
PaE IrB
CeB2 CeB2
CeD2 1 � EnB MO MeD
CeD2
En IrB CeB2
Ce
PaE
MeB
EnB MeD
CeD2
r EnB
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded No, 12.7
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded No 2.7 Legend
DaB Davidson sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 7.2
EnB Endo sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 3.3
IrB Iredell fine sandy loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes No a Project Limits (163 ac.)
MeB Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 41 HeB
MeD Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 23.2 n
MO Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently Flooded Yes 6.8 Roads
PaE Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes No 1.5
W Water No 0.8
WkD Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes No 0.7
rr D 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, DATED 2017. B
EnB M D
WkD
SCALE:
1,000 feet DATE: 10/11/2018 USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
1 inch =
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: of Mecklenburg County
ount 2
2018-0103 DJZ Cheyney
of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.361947, -80.815124 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 3
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0103 Meridale Bolt-On\PETSWrcGIS\Figure2_CurrentSoils.mxd

C:\Users\Sean Martin\Desktop\Projects\Meridale\PETS\Figure3_Habitat.mxd

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Govemor Roy Cooper Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
April 18, 2018
Sean Martin
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
RE: Meridale Bolt On; CWS# 2018-0103
Dear Sean Martin:
NCNHDE-5826
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler(a)_ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS: Tele hone: [919', 7D7-8107 LOCA.TICN
16`1 MaiI Ser,rice Center www.nenh2.org 121 VVest hones S-reat
Ralaigh, NC 27899-1881 Ralaigh, NC 27603

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Meridale Dolt On
Project No. CWS# 2018-0103
April 18, 2018
NCNHDE-5826
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the NCNHP database
does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare
species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Clark's Creek Nature Preserve Mecklenburg County Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on April 18, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2018. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Meridale Dolt On
Project No. CWS# 2018-0103
April 18, 2018
NCNHDE-5826
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Pro'ect Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name ommon Name Element
Group Observation Occurrence
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi?
Vascular Plant 33285 Sceptridium jenmanii Alabama Grape -fern 1936-09 H
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Accuracy Federal
State
Global
State
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
5 -Very ---
Endangered
G3
S2
Low
5 -Very ---
Special
G3G4
S2
Low
Concern
Vulnerable
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project t Area
Managed Area Name wner Owner Type
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Clark's Creek Nature Preserve Mecklenburg County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on April 18, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2018. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-5826: Meridale Dolt On
April 18,2018
F-1 Project Boundary
M Buffered Project Boundary
EJ Managed Area (MAREA)
LQ
LN
JopIw
'V,
April 18,2018
F-1 Project Boundary
M Buffered Project Boundary
EJ Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 4 of 4
1:26,532
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 mi
0 035 07 14 kFn
Sources: rn
rsri, HERE, Carmn% Iniernrap, in-eent P Corp., GEWO, USGS,
FAO NPS. N RCAN, Geol3ase. IGN, Kadast; NL. Ordnance Survey, Ewi Japan.
METj sni China iHonq "�. �Llapp. re
OpenSle[Map cQrktri �
bvIQ. andt�& G, S us.,community
LN
'V,
c=
E
Crc4l
Page 4 of 4
1:26,532
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 mi
0 035 07 14 kFn
Sources: rn
rsri, HERE, Carmn% Iniernrap, in-eent P Corp., GEWO, USGS,
FAO NPS. N RCAN, Geol3ase. IGN, Kadast; NL. Ordnance Survey, Ewi Japan.
METj sni China iHonq "�. �Llapp. re
OpenSle[Map cQrktri �
bvIQ. andt�& G, S us.,community

i
,�- •sig .�-'�: � - . .z. � '1
•fir: j y.�.,; r � _ : •. � ..,
0
•
' :
4tA . .
•r
•
.ass..
. '`�-"'3�.,':'�'c
- .
.. -
... _
1171 .7..
77.
0

Cheyney April 19, 2018
Attachment B: Representative Photographs CWS Project No. 2018-0103
Photograph 3. View of shrub/scrub land, investigated for Schweinitz's sunflower habitat, facing south.
Photograph 4. View of shrub -scrub land, investigated for Schweinitz's sunflower habitat, facing south.
Photopage 2 of 2

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT H:
NC WAM Form
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
ea uael alluaaIaw11 a.0
Project Name
Cheyney
Date of Evaluation
10.25.18
Applicant/Owner Name
Mattamy Homes
Wetland Site Name
Wetland AA
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
CWS
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Clarks Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
03040105
County
Mecklenburg
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.360475, -80.818390
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearbyseptic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑ No If Yes, check all that applyto the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered bybeaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑ B ❑ B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacityand Duration —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ® B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑ C ❑ C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
EIB ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
EIC ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑ B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑ C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑ C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑ D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑ E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. El Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >:1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑ B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland-opportunitymetric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑ B ❑ B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetla nd and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑ C ❑ C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
®A ®A ®A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑ B ❑ B ❑ B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑ C ❑ C ❑ C >- 20% coverage of pasture
® D ® D ® D >- 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑ E ❑ E ❑ E >- 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑ F ❑ F ❑ F >- 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑ G ❑ G ❑ G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑ No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
bufferjudgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
El >- 50 feet
❑ B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑ C From 15 to < 30 feet
® D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑ E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<- 15-feetwide ❑> 15-feetwide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑ No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered -adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑ Exposed - adjacent open water with width >- 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area -wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
EIA ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑ B ❑ B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑ C ❑ C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑ D ❑ D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑ E ❑ E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑ F ® F From 15 to < 30 feet
El El From 5 to < 15 feet
❑ H ❑ H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration -assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
El Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
MB Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑ C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
MA Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
El Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
El Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size -wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if applicable)
❑A
❑A
❑A
>- 500 acres
❑ B
❑ B
❑ B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑ C
❑ C
❑ C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑ D
❑ D
❑ D
From 25 to < 50 acres
❑ E
❑ E
❑ E
From 10 to < 25 acres
❑ F
❑ F
❑ F
From 5 to < 10 acres
El
El
El
From 1 to < 5 acres
❑ H
❑ H
❑ H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
MI
MI
MI
From 0.1 to<0.5acre
❑J
❑J
❑J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑ K
❑ K
❑ K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑ B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas -landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box maybe checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
❑ B
❑ B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑ C
❑ C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑ D
❑ D
From 10 to < 50 acres
M E
❑ E
< 10 acres
❑ F
❑ F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑ No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >- 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
MA 0
❑ B 1 to 4
El 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition -assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
El Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
MB Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
El Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity -assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑ B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑ C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessmentarea/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑ No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑ B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
a❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
CO MB MB Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑ C ❑ C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
I? EIB ❑ B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
MC MC Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
El ❑A Dense shrub layer
t EIB ❑ B Moderate density shrub layer
10 MC MC Shrub layer sparse or absent
-o El ❑A Dense herb layer
EIB ❑ B Moderate density herb layer
MC MC Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
M B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
MA Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑ B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑ C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
M B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetlandtype/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A El El El
] t-�1
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
[RC Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑ D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Exotic species such as Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle present, but not dominant within the wetland. Some vehicle tracts are present,
but not over majority of assessment area. The area receives eccessive stormwater runoff from the development upstream.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland AA
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 10.25.18
Assessor Name/Organization CWS
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summar
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

Cheyney
Attachments
ATTACHMENT I:
L F Acceptance Letter
October 31, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0103

Mtrf9mum Aces
MAVI"MMEMTAL QUALITY
October 25, 2018
Bob Wiggins
Mattamy Homes
2127 Ayrsley Town Blvd Suite 201
Charlotte, NC 28273
Project: Cheyney
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
.Secrclnry
Expiration of Acceptance: 4/25/2019
County: Mecklenburg
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
{8 -digit HUCj
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Yadkin 03040105
Riparian Wetland
0.106
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: Aliisa Harjumiemi, agent
Sincerely,
J m s. B Stanfill
t Management Supervisor
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T