The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20150552 Ver 1_401 Application_20150615Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group May 29, 2015 Mr William Elliott U S Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, NC 28801 Mr Alan Johnson NCDENR Division of Water Resources 610 East Center Street, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Ms Karen Higgins NCDENR Division of Water Resources Wetlands & Storm Water Branch 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27604 Mr Bryan Tompkins U S Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Field Office 160 Zillicoa St Asheville, NC 28801 Dear Ms Higgins and Mr Messrs Elliott, Johnson and Tompkins, Leonard S Rmdner, PLLC 20150552 Enclosed is a request for Nationwide Permit #29 associated with the proposed development of a residential retirement community known as Lake Harmony Estates The Jurisdictional features on the site were delineated December 18, 2014 and include an onsrte pond and an abutting wetland Proposed permanent impacts associated with the project total 0 3 acres of open water pond for lot development The site plan was designed to avoid jurisdictional features to the maximum extent practicable while still providing a viable access and development of the site Due to the location /extent of jurisdictional features on the site, complete avoidance was not practicable Specifically, 0 3 acres of the existing 0 81 acre onsrte open -water pond will be filled to provide adequate stability for proposed lots and access roads while avoiding impacts to additional onsrte surface waters The remainder of the pond onsrte (0 78 acres) will remain in preconstruction conditions and 0 06 acres of onsrte wetlands will be avoided Also enclosed is a copy of our Threatened /Endangered Species Evaluation for the site in which habitat exists for the recently listed Northern Long Eared Bat The site is currently wooded but Charlotte Office w www wetlands -epg com Asheville Office 10612 -D Providence Rd 1070 Tunnel Rd, Bldg I PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283 Charlotte NC 28277 Asheville NC 28805 (704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059 len rindner @wetlands -epg com 1 amanda lones @wetlands -epg com Wetlands and Environmental Planning Leonard S Rindner, PLLC will not be cleared until after August 15th to avoid the maternal roosting season Based on this clearing schedule, we believe there will be no effects to this species or any others listed as federally endangered /threatened We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information and please contact us if you have any questions Sincerely, Amanda Jones, PWS f, Amanda Jones Regulatory Specialist Heath Caldwell, PWS Heath Caldwell Environmental Scientist IPIIM� T= a n Charlotte Office www wetlands -epg com Asheville Office 10612 -D Providence Rd 1070 Tunnel Rd , Bldg I PMB 550 Suite 10, PM 283 Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805 (704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059 len rindner @wetlands -epg com 2 amanda (ones @wetlands -epg com YYE EQ 77 '" Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S Rindner PLLC Agent Authorization Letter The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic resource (i a stream /wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting The undersigned, who are either registered property owners or legally authorized to conduct due diligence activities on the property as identified below, do hereby authorize associates of Leonard S Rmdner, PLLC, Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of applicable permit(s) and /or certification(s) Project /Site Name Lake Harmony Estates Property Address 2800 Mt Harmony Church Road, Matthews, NC Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 21512304 Select one 1 am the current property owner Name: Mike Kissel Company: Bonterra Builders Mailing Address: 5615 Potter Road, Matthews, NC 28104 Telephone Number: 980 - 333 -1038 Electronic Mail Address. mkissel @bonterrabuilders.com f / Interested Buyer* / Other' Ze Date * The Interested Buyer /Other acknowledges that an agi eement mid /or format contract to purchase and /or conduct due diligence activities exists between the current property owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases where the property is not owned by the signatory Charlotte Office www wetlands -epg com Asheville Office 10612 -0 Providence Rd 1070 Tunnel Rd. Bldg I PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283 Charlotte NC 28277 Asheville NC 28805 (704) 904 -2277 (826) 708 -7059 len r indner gwetlands -epg com 2 amanda IonesQa wetlands -epg com C O 4 cd u a a Q .E L Permit Application OBOE wAT �90G O Y Office Use Only Corps action ID no DWQ project no Form Version 1 4 January 2009 Page 1 of 10 PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009 Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form A Applicant Information 1 Processing la Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps ❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit 1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 29 or General Permit (GP) number 1c Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ❑X No 1 d Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply) ❑X 401 Water Quality Certification – Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification – Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization 1 e Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401 Certification ❑X Yes ❑ 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 ❑ Yes ® No 1 g Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h below ❑ Yes ❑X No 1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes ❑X No 2 Project Information 2a Name of project Lake Harmony Estates 2b County Mecklenburg County 2c Nearest municipality / town Matthews 2d Subdivision name Lake Harmony Estates 2e NCDOT only, T I P or state project no 3 Owner Information ALL.-92 AN nn 3a Name(s) on Recorded Deed Bonterra Builders, LLC 3b Deed Book and Page No 29612 -525 JUN 0 3 2015 to 3c Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable) Mike Kissel WgTER 3d Street address 5615 Potter Road ER PERMUTING 3e City, state, zip Matthews, INC 28104 3f Telephone no 980- 333 -1038 3g Fax no 3h Email address mklssel bonterrabullders com Page 1 of 10 PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009 4 Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a Applicant is ❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify Buyer 4b Name 4c Business name (if applicable) 4d Street address 4e City, state, zip 4f Telephone no 4g Fax no 4h Email address 5 Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a Name Len Rindner 5b Business name (if applicable) Leonard S Rindner, PLLC, Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) 5c Street address 10612 -D Providence Road, PMB 550 5d City, state, zip Charlotte, NC 28277 5e Telephone no 704 904 2277 5f Fax no 5g Email address len rindner @wetlands -epg corn Page 2 of 10 B Project Information and Prior Project History 1 Property Identification 1a Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID) 21512304 1 b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees) I Latitude 35 1144 Longitude -80 6743 1c Property size 796 acres 2 Surface Waters 2a Name of nearest body of water to proposed project North Fork Crooked Creek 2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water Class C 2c River basin Rocky Watershed -- 03040105 3 Project Description 3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application The site is currently undeveloped and predominately wooded having an open water pond on the eastern property boundary General land use in the vicinity consists of residential properties 3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property 0 06 3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 0 3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project The purpose of the protect is for development of residential structures and access 3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used The project will be constructed using standard equipment - excavator, trackhoe, dump trucks, etc 4 Jurisdictional Determinations 4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including all prior phases) in the past? ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown Comments 4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final 4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Name (if known) Agency /Consultant Company Other 4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation 5 Project History 5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown 5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions 6 Future Project Plans 6a Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes Q No 6b If yes, explain Page 3 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 C Proposed Impacts Inventory 1 Impacts Summary la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply) ❑ Wetlands ❑ Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X 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 Choose one Choose one Yes /No - W2 Choose one Choose one Yes /No W3 Choose one Choose one Yes /No W4 Choose one Choose one Yes /No W5 Choose one Choose one Yes /No W6 Choose one Choose one Yes /No 2g Total Wetland Impacts 2h Comments 3 Stream Impacts If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted 3a Stream impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 3b Type of impact 3c Stream name 3d Perennial (PER) or intermittent (INT)? 3e Type of jurisdiction 3f Average stream width (feet) 3g Impact length (linear feet) S1 Choose one S2 Choose one S3 Choose one S4 Choose one S5 Choose one S6 Choose one 3h Total stream and tributary impacts 31 Comments Page 4 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 4 Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U S then indivi ually list all open water impacts below 4a Open water impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary T 4b Name of waterbody (if applicable) 4c Type of impact 4d Waterbody type 4e Area of Impact (acres) 01 P Open Water Pond B Fill Pond 03 O2 Choose one Choose 03 Choose one Choose 04 Choose one Choose 4f Total open water impacts 03 4g Comments 5 Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below 5a Pond ID number 5b Proposed use or purpose of pond 5c Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d Stream Impacts (feet) 5e Upland (acres) Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated P1 Choose one P2 Choose one 5f Total 5g Comments 5h Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes ❑X No If yes, permit ID no 51 Expected pond surface area (acres) 51 Size of pond watershed (acres) 5k Method of construction 6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form 6a Project is In which protected basin? ❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other 6b Buffer Impact number — Permanent (P) or Temporary T 6c Reason for impact 6d Stream name 6e Buffer mitigation required? 6f Zone 1 impact (square feet ) 6g Zone 2 impact (square feet B1 Yes /No B2 Yes /No B3 Yes /No B4 Yes /No B5 Yes /No B6 Yes /No 6h Total Buffer Impacts 61 Comments Page 5 of 10 D Impact Justification and Mitigation 1 Avoidance and Minimization 1 a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed Impacts In designing project Lot placement, sizing and grading was designed to provide adequate stability for proposed lots and access roads while minimizing impacts to site surface waters The site contains over 0 78 acers of open water and 0 06 acres of wetlands which are being avoided lb Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed Impacts through construction techniques Lot placement and sizing has been designed to provide adequate stability and protection to the pond edge All grading has been planned to avoid any impacts to Wetland A 2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State 2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State? ❑ Yes ❑X No 2b If yes, mitigation Is required by (check all that apply) ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps 2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Mitigation bank El Payment to In -lieu fee program ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a Name of Mitigation Bank 3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Choose one Type Choose one Type Choose one Quantity Quantity Quantity 3c Comments 4 Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program 4a Approval letter from In -lieu fee program Is attached ❑ Yes 4b Stream mitigation requested linear feet 4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature Choose one 4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only) square feet 4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested acres 4h Comments 5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan Page 6 of 10 PCN Form —Version 1 4 January 2009 6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ 6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation Yes ❑X No ED 6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the amount of mitigation required Zone 6c Reason for impact 6d Total impact (square feet) Multiplier 6e Required mitigation (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 1 5 6f Total buffer mitigation required 6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank, permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund) 6h Comments Page 7 of 10 E Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1 Diffuse Flow Plan 1 a Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ❑X No within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? lb If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why ❑ Yes ❑ No 2 Stormwater Management Plan 2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 267% 2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑X Yes ❑ No 2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why 2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan See attached stormwater plan and letter from engineer The site includes one large stormwater BMP treatment and detention facility The stormwater plan has not been approved yet since Mecklenburg County requires copy of the 401 certification before they will approve the stormwater plan However, the plan as proposed meets their current guidelines and is expected to be approved once the 404/401 permits are received 2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? Mecklenburg County 3 Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Mecklenburg County ❑X Phase II ❑ NSW 3b Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs ❑ USMP apply (check all that apply) ❑ Water Supply Watershed ❑ Other 3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑X No attached? 4 DWQ Stormwater Program Review ❑Coastal counties ❑HQW 4a Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ORW (check all that apply) ❑Session Law 2006 -246 ❑Other 4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑X No attached? 5 DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Page 8 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 F Supplementary Information 1 Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) la Does the project Involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ❑ Yes ❑X No use of public (federal /state) land? lb 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 El Yes ❑ No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? 1c If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval ❑ Yes ❑ No letter ) Comments 2. Violations (DWQ Requirement) 2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, El Yes ❑X No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)? 2b Is this an after - the -fact permit applications El Yes ❑X No 2c If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s) 3 Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in E] Yes ❑X No additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 3b If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description No cumulative effects are anticipated from the project There are no additional properties to be developed that are associated with this protect so all the impacts have been accounted for 4 Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility Wastewater generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via installation of sewer lines Page 9 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ❑X No habitat? 5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes ❑X No impacts? 5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted - 5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? Professional knowledge of threatened /endangered resourcesin the area No habitat for potential species exists on site Also, please see attached Threatened and Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation Report 6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ❑X No 6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? No Essential Fish Habitat in this region 7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ❑X No status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? http / /gis ncdcr gov /hpoweb/ 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain? ❑ Yes ❑X No 8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements 8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Information provided by County website (http Hpolans3g mecklenburgcountync govn and Engineer Amanda Jones for WEPG 5/28/2015 Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Date v Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided Page 10 of 10 N C (o FL N CL (d a Maps /Plans yam` Winding !n St-85 i rigs rc� SM'e! � x pi1i11iAs Rd .rshiP o SITE tthews S Ty��w� � Hemby Bri 3 ec0 Stretr� Ora : W. Butler High School portpattiC)i' Stallings Mount H Lake Pa ® Microsoft 2014 Mic Corporation Bap to bing ® 2(114 Nokia Churc r SITE do or Danni �� t~liit pt 4 Marg, A\4S t bing - - -1 4 Steyeoso 0 2014 Mi --moh CoTmtion 9 2414 Nokia FIGURE NO. �A/E:Df` I LAKE HARMONY ESTATES I Drawn By: I Reviewed By: 1 Mecklenburg, NC NRN LSR VICINITY MAP — WATERS OF THE U.S. EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION DATE: 12/18/14 { Al 0 * • �! SITE --, 01 }� cp yt ' , NORTH FORK CROOKED CREEK l �-Q a f= , LOCATION SCALE Lat: 35.1144 °N 1:24,000 Long: 80.6743 2W ACRES USGS QUAD HUC: 03040105 7.96 Matthews, NC / :..,�; _, lam• � �� FIGURE NO. I LAKE HARMONY ESTATES I Drawn By: I Reviewed By: 2 �A/170/0` Mecklenburg, NC NRN LSR DATE: USGS MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S. EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 12/18/14 SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION ti IV FIGURE NO. 4 j_ t T r IL jJ�� r: : i*^ � Cs y L 11 Lp a LAKE HARMONY ESTATES Mecklenburg Co., NC SOILS MAP — WATERS OF THE U.S. EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION NP. Drawn By: I Reviewed By: NRN LSR DATE: 12/18/14 a � + � � \ \ \ 0 ƒ $ 2 � \ ) \ . ƒ \ < � \ \ \ i \ \ z ^/ �k » §\ \� �■ ± / q } Ln LLI v / J \ } 0 m d \ t m o � k / LLI a k \ o k = u & \ � m « -Y 12 . LU u o CL - £ C z \ � 2 � § q � ■ ■ # � \ . _ [ » { § - \ \ { \ \ �= 2 \ 2 = > # 5 3 ° § � !ƒ § k■ 2 \{ \ \ \ 0 ƒ $ 2 � \ ) \ . ƒ \ < � \ \ \ i \ \ z ^/ �k » §\ \� �■ ± / q } Ln LLI v / J \ } 0 m d \ t m o � k / LLI a k \ o k = u & \ � m « -Y 12 . LU u o CL - £ C z \ � 2 � § q � ! \ / f / \ \ \ 0 ƒ $ 2 � \ ) \ . ƒ \ < � \ \ \ i \ \ z ^/ �k » §\ \� �■ ± / q } Ln LLI v / J \ } 0 m d \ t m o � k / LLI a k \ o k = u & \ � m « -Y 12 . LU u o CL - £ C z \ � 2 � § q � / [ » \ \ { \ \ c \ 2 = > # 5 3 \ \ \ 0 ƒ $ 2 � \ ) \ . ƒ \ < � \ \ \ i \ \ z ^/ �k » §\ \� �■ ± / q } Ln LLI v / J \ } 0 m d \ t m o � k / LLI a k \ o k = u & \ � m « -Y 12 . LU u o CL - £ C z \ � 2 � § q � 0 0.00A009 0.018 Ubs FIGURE NO. 8 t WETLAND A 0.06 acres ! L r f �I UPLAND DATA ? POINT 7 PIPE STREAM EACH ■ • EVALUATION POINT ■ WETLAND CULVERT DATA POINT LAKE HARMONY ESTATES Mecklenburg, NC Drawn By: Reviewed By: NRN LSR DATE: DELINEATION MAP — WATERS OF THE U.S. EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 12/18/14 SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION O OL 8 OZ09'IZ9'YOL O w L " c � $ i019Z 3N 'LM3H11VW UVOY VMOd 5195 Sd3aiina "1131N08 S; O w p C C O d 8 —`o € r VNIIOaV� HIVON 'SM3H11VW C L w V O 4 A A S31b1S3 JlNOW21b'H DIV-I g 'NO EPEN� N. BLVD Q QW �h a� �Q, as sa rnrw uo Z Z 60 N i D ` \ \\ �/ / / \ - 716 - -� % Till, ry� �lb o LL La J Ta o �� 11 l (zQ Zr (1 _-�� iI r 80 z el., Ir wm LLI a- 34 - i N 0 r 0 3 0 AD 0 0 0 0 0 a .a t c ID e� 0 t b-o T '6 0 0 S ozo4• Izt•rot c S YO1fZ :)N'SM3RUVW „' OVOY M3-UOd S 19S r O p ry r E SMaiins ` IJ31NOU S, W Lu O `w of Q La Z b CL n a w v w VNIIO'dVD H1aON 'SM3H11VW �° 3 ry �! 2 Pia S31b'1S3 ANOW21`dH DI` I G J: a a ° .... o f PE NDCNCE Bow NOE �I y • 2Uj u oa SdnroNd r, l a l\ r \�� QJ U y _OO 20 U= S 'Po r 14u � Q — �~ m cC n 00 i' I I v OM W ��. Z N N W 1 z w tA II a a O NN D IH111rt Ln J J �\ g �\ \ 5 $ N N ` \ ^ N 9 I� o N N z _\� �2ON� tC --- -_- - 7rl 777 f W r _ 001 10, EW `oc3NLn N I O= N 0 / I 0 W N N Z w JA � ca �J V � N W =o ^Q OU°iuz U- LU cc : =, 2 0 u .. Lj Z O Z W a0LA r r� J� O Q oOc�o = 3 2 Up } � 9 0 OC tD N rm N J CIO � O 2 GQ cr O VZ ui = N o OU�+w 3 2 a ry I 2Qe W I H a I U tD J Q � O U Q oc O o z LL g��w N 0 O4 ^off O N Z W ?maND L 0 v 0 0 O a (Q� oza• lnYOL I 0 • �T. LL o, ro uz �w 'slulvw H vNavow 13 LWJ $ Its S4l1f8 VVa31 N08 i= l/1 Z to novv� HLLoN's#a ulvn d - l i ; t i x SUVIS3 ANOIN'*dVH 3NVI g d ice s _ CL zs ,2Y gam+ O cr ob S. nnw U U / w } OZ a- m O Q a / o za� .(n m W cc +I !JI 3 � •r" -_ - -��i � 1 1 �� ` \.� �; ;� � \ 1 i � � � /" 1. Q O - _ -_. •. ',`L� '� ,w O Z z Z w LA- a z - mo 734 o - I a o O a . , -• `� i LaJ (n W W \ O 3 0 C) `' z Z Q W W Fm ^ / 0 N F 3 X � I X Z Z W W W W O X a �- JJJ JJJ W B v 0 v O 0 CL 3 0 0108 izrroc C MR 3N'SM3H1LVw C .n ovov viva $I 9s CC 2 _ SSalins "W31NOG Q Z vNnovv:) H1tioN 'SM3Hiivw N d rs CL, S31V1S3 ANOIN21VH DIVI i == Ol tL \ i 1 J I \ \I-ol rc ° CL L N zc 130 E� Q zz 00 C1 g H � fit! LLJ (w W >- U 0 Q C / �_ / \ / Z� I ac 073 � O W «« �U O� >,E 0 15 zw < `�� ll�� ' \�\ 0p Q �N WW m LL �� WD \ p �� /^ \� \� �` 03 so WD \ I CL � Lj w W t—m cn 00 W a 0z 00 \ O �n \ \ I � T D 0z Lva ` _� oy a 0O a ZO LL- WO LL. O— `1 az O O V) 0 LL a I$ — — X — W — O N 0 — — 90 d� a 040 zl— ^ Cl. 00a Qz an C1 g H � LLJ (w '=o' 0 Q C Uj W Cl. � O W «« �U O� < Q C O C L 0 f� C O .4-J V_ N .L Jurisdictional Determination Information Photo 1: Photo taken upstream of Non - Jurisdictional Gully /Overflow. �i r Lake Harmony Estates /` / [ 1 �� _ _� __._ __ T.,.____ Mecklenburg County, NC - Photos taken 12/18/14 Wretrtands and Ermronmental Planning Group Leonard S ILndner. PLLC. Photo 2: View of Wetland A (facing South). Lake Harmony Estates YVP Mecklenburg County, NC - Photos taken 12/18/14 Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC. Photo 3: View of Wetland A (facing North). Lake Harmony Estates WEEMecklenburg County, NC - Photos taken 12/18/14 Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rmdner. PLLC. Photo 4: View Open Water Pond B (facing North). Lake Harmony Estates INEEG Mecklenburg County, NC - Photos taken 12/18/14 Wetlands and Environmental Ptanning Group Leonard S. lbndner. PLLC. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Prolect/Site Lake Harmony Estates City /County Matthews /Mecklenburg Applicant/Owner State NC Investigator(s) NRN, LSR Section, Township, Range Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA Lat 35 1144 N Long 80 6743 W Soil Map Unit Name Ce62 Cecil sandy clay loam NWI classification Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes F✓ No = Are Vegetation N , Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Sampling Date 12 -18 -14 _ Sampling Point Wet A Slope ( %) 2 - 8% Datum SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No = Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No = within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No = Remarks Upland data point taken approximately 30' North of Wetland A HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that aooly) =Surface Soil Cracks (B6) F7,( Surface Water (Al) =True Aquatic Plants (1314) =�Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) =Prainage Patterns (610) =Saturation (A3) =Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) =Moss Trim Lines (616) =Water Marks (61) =Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) =Dry- Season Water Table (C2) =Sediment Deposits (132) =Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) =Crayfish Burrows (C8) =Drift Deposits (133) =Thin Muck Surface (C7) =Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) =Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) =Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) =Iron Deposits (65) =Geomorphic Position (D2) =Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) =Shallow Aquitard (D3) =Water - Stained Leaves (69) =Microtopographic Relief (D4) =Aquatic Fauna (613) =FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches) 2-4" Water Table Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches) Saturation Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point WetA Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet ) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size ) % Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Platanus occidentalis 30% Y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 9 (A) 2 Ulmus amercana 25% Y FACW 3 Liquidambar styraciflua 20% Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 9 Species Across All Strata (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% (A/B) 6 Prevalence Index worksheet 7 75% = Total Cover Total % Cover of Multiply by Sapling Stratum (Plot size ) OBL species x 1 = 1 Platanus occidentalis 10% Y FACW FACW species x 2 = 2 Ulmus amencana 10% Y FACW FAC species x 3 = 3 Ligwdambar styraciflua 10% Y FAC FACU species x 4 = 4 UPL species x 5 = 5 Column Totals (A) (B) 6 Prevalence Index = B/A = 7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 30% =Total Cover 01 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Shrub Stratum (Plot size ) 1 Alnus serrulata 30% Y FACW E7-12 - Dominance Test is >50% 2 Q3 - Prevalence Index is :53 0' 04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 3 4 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) =Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 5 6 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 7 be present, unless disturbed or problematic 30% = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata Herb Stratum (Plot size ) 1 Onoclea sensibdis 30% Y FACW Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 2 approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in (7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH) 3 4 Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less 5 than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH 6 Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 7 approximately 3 to 20 it (1 to 6 m) in height 8 9 Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody 10 plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 11 ft (1 m) in height 12 Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height 30% = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 1 Lonicera japonica 30% Y FAC 2 3 Hydrophytic 4 Vegetation ❑ 5 Present? YesF✓ No 30% = Total Cover Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet ) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point Wet A the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators ) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-12 2 5YR 5/1 100 Sandy Gay loam RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains Hydric Sod Indicators =Histosol (Al) =Dark Surface (S7) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' =2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) = Histic Epipedon (A2) =Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) =Coast Prairie Redox (A16) =Black Histic (A3) =Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) =Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) =Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) =Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) =Stratified Layers (A5) =2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) =Depleted Matrix (F3) = Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 136, 147) =Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) =Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) =Depleted Dark Surface (F7) =Other (Explain in Remarks) =Thick Dark Surface (Al2) = Redox Depressions (F8) =Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, =Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) =Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) MLRA 136) =Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and =Sandy Redox (S5) =Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, =Stripped Matrix (S6) =Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed) Type Depth (inches) Remarks Hydric Soil Present? YesF No = US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site Lake Harmony Estates City /County Matthews /Mecklenburg Applicant/Owner State NC Investigator(s) NRN, LSR Section, Township, Range Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA Lat 35 1144 N Long 80 6743 W Soil Map Unit Name CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ Are Vegetation N Soil N , or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation N , Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? Sampling Date 12 -18 -14 _ Sampling Point Upland - Slope ( %) 2 - 8% Datum NWI classification No (If no, explain in Remarks ) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No= (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No 0✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Soil Present? Yes= No =✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No 0✓ Remarks Upland data point taken approximately 30' NW of Wetland A HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply) [�Surface Soil Cracks (136) =Surface Water (A1) =True Aquatic Plants (614) E=1sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) =High Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) E=]Drainage Patterns (610) =Saturation (A3) =Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) =Moss Trim Lines (616) =Water Marks (131) =Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) =Dry- Season Water Table (C2) =Sediment Deposits (62) =Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) =Crayfish Burrows (C8) =Drift Deposits (63) =Thin Muck Surface (C7) [Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) =Algal Mat or Crust (64) Other (Explain in Remarks) =Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) =Iron Deposits (65) =Geomorphic Position (D2) =Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) =Shallow Aquitard (D3) =Water - Stained Leaves (139) =Microtopographic Relief (D4) =Aquatic Fauna (613) =FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Saturation Present? Yes= No Q Depth (inches) Yes= No= Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No �✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point upland Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet ) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Pinus virginiana 35% Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 1 (A) 2 Jurnperus virginiana 25% Y FACU 3 Prunus serotina 15% Y FACU Total Number of Dominant $ Species Across All Strata (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 12% (A/B) 6 Prevalence Index worksheet 7 75% = Total Cover Total % Cover of Multiply by Sapling Stratum (Plot size ) OBL species x 1 = 1 Prunus serotina 15% Y FACU FACW species x 2 = 2 Juniperus virginiana 10% Y FACU FAC species x 3 = 3 Pmus virginiana 5% N FACU FACU species x 4 = 4 UPL species x 5 = 5 Column Totals (A) (B) 6 Prevalence Index = B/A = 7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 30% = Total Cover 01 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Shrub Stratum (Plot size ) - 1 Ligustrum smense 25% Y FACU 02 - Dominance Test is >50% 2 03 - Prevalence Index is < -3 0' 04 3 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 4 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) =Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 5 6 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must 7 be present, unless disturbed or problematic 25% = Total Cover Definitions of Frye Vegetation Strata Herb Stratum (Plot size ) 1 Allium vineale 30% Y FACU Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 2 Asplenium platyneuron 15% Y FACU approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in (7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH) 3 4 Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less 5 than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH 6 Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 7 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height 8 9 Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody 10 plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 11 ft (1 m) in height 12 Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height 45% = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 1 Lonicera japonica 30% Y FAC 2 3 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation �✓ 5 Present? Yes= No 30% = Total Cover Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet ) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0 SOIL to the death needed to Sampling Point Upland or confirm the absence of indicators ) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' To T_ Texture Remarks 0 - 3 5YR 5/8 100 Sandy Gay loam 3-12 2 5YR 4/8 100 'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains `Location PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix Hydric Sod Indicators =Histosol (Al) =Dark Surface (S7) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' =2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) =Histic Epipedon (A2) =Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) =Coast Prairie Redox (A16) =Black Histic (A3) =Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) =Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) =Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) =Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) =Stratified Layers (A5) =2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) =Depleted Matrix (F3) = Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 136, 147) =Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) =Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) =Depleted Dark Surface (F7) =Other (Explain in Remarks) =Thick Dark Surface (Al2) = Redox Depressions (F8) =Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, =Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) =Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) MLRA 136) = Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and =Sandy Redox (S5) =Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, =Stripped Matrix (S6) =Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed) Type Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0 STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM Date 12/18/14 1 Evaluator NRN Eastin 80 6743 W Project I Lake Harmony Estates Non - Jurisdictional — Wetland A Northing 35 1144 N Total Points: 2 Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30* 185 (right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points) 0 A. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate° °Strong° ° .-SCORE 1a Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 1 2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 0 3 In- channel structure riffle- / step- pool sequence 0 1 2 3 0 4 Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1 5 Active /relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 0 6 Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1 7 Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 0 8 Headcuts 0 1 2 3 2 9 Grade controls 0 05 1 1 5 0 10 Natural valley 0 05 1 1 5 05 11 Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0 Geomorphology Subtotal 55 a Man -made ditches are not rated see discussion in NCDWQ Manual B. Hydrology 12 Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 3 13 Iron Oxidizing Bacteria 0 1 2 3 1 14 Leaf litter 1 5 1 05 0 0 15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 05 1 1 5 0 16 Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 05 1 1 5 0 17 Soil -based Evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 3 Hydrology Subtotal 70 C. Biology 18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2 19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3 20 Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0 21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0 22 Fish 0 05 1 1 1 5 0 23 Crayfish 0 05 1 1 5 1 24 Amphibians 0 05 1 1 5 0 25 Algae 0 05 1 1 5 0 26 Wetland plants in streambed FACW= 0 75, OBL= 1 5, Other= 0 0 Biology Subtotal 60 * perennial streams may also be identified usmq other methods See paqe 35 of NCDWQ manual Notes Feature is a wetland below a Open Water Pond B Adapted from NCDWQ Methodolopv for Ident►ficat►on of Interm►ttent and Perenrnal Streams and their Onpins (version 4 11) APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U S Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section iV of the JD Form instructional Guidebook SECTION 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION A REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) B DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER Applicant Bonterra Builders, LLC Site Lake Harmony Estates Form for Wetland A and Open Water Pond B C PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION State NC County/parish /borough Mecklenburg City Matthews Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format) Lat 35 1144' N, Long -80 6743° W Universal Transverse Mercator Name of nearest waterbody North Fork Crooked Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows Rocky River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105 ® Check if map /diagram of review area and /or potential Jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request ❑ Check if other sites (e g , offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form D REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) ❑ Office (Desk) Determination Date d Field Determination Date(s) SECTION 11 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION 1 here Are o ,navigable waters of the US " within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) Jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area [Required] ❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide ❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce Explain B CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION There Kre "waters of the US " within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area [Required] 1 Waters of the U S a Indicate presence of waters of U S in review area (check all that apply) i ❑ TNWs, including territorial seas ❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ❑ Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ® Impoundments of jurisdictional waters ❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U S in the review area Non - wetland waters 0 linear feet width (ft) and /or acres Wetlands 0 06 acres c Limits (boundaries) of, jurisdiction based on _ stabbshed by —H—W- Elevation of established OHWM (if known) 2 Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable) s ' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 below - For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e g , typically 3 months) ' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III F ❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and /or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional Explain SECTION III CWA ANALYSIS A TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies Ail] assert jurisdiction over 7 NWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III A 1 and Section III D 1. only, if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III A I and 2 and Section 111 D 1 , otherwise, see Section IiI B below 1 TNW Identify TNW Summarize rationale supporting determination 2 Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent" B CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT iS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY) This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met The agencies will assert ,jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i e tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g , typically 3 months) A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional if the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round (perennial) flow, skip to Section Ill D 2 If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section 111 D 4 A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both if the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III B 1 for the tributary, Section Ill B 2 for any onsrte wetlands, and Section 111 B 3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsrte and offsrte The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section 111 C below 1 Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions Watershed size icList Drainage area Pick List Average annual rainfall inches Average annual snowfall inches (n) Physical Characteristics (a) Relationship with TNW ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW ❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW Project waters are �ick List river miles from RPW Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries Explain Identify flow route to TNW' Tributary stream order if known Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West s Flow route can be described by identifying, e g , tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply) Tributary is ❑ Natural ❑ Artificial (man -made) Explain ❑ Manipulated (man- altered) Explain Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate) Average width feet Average depth feet Average side slopes Pick List Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply) ❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation Type /% cover ❑ Other Explain ❑ Concrete ❑ Muck Tributary condition /stability [e g , highly eroding, sloughing banks] Explain Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes Explain Tributary geometry ick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope) % (c) Flow Tributary provides for I ick rstLrstL Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year Pick rstLrstL Describe flow regime Other information on duration and volume Surface flow is cekL�st Characteristics Subsurface flow Pick -List Explain findings ❑ Dye (or other) test performed Tributary has (check all that apply) ❑ Bed and banks ❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply) ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ ❑ shelving ❑ ❑ vegetation matted down bent or absent ❑ ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ ❑ sediment deposition ❑ ❑ water staining ❑ ❑ other (list) ❑ Discontinuous OHWM ' Explain If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ ❑ High Tide Line indicated by ❑ ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings /characteristics ❑ tidal gauges ❑ other (list) the presence of litter and debris destruction of terrestrial vegetation the presence of wrack line sediment sorting scour multiple observed or predicted flow events abrupt change in plant community me lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply) Mean High Water Mark indicated by ❑ survey to available datum, ❑ physical markings ❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types (in) Chemical Characteristics Characterize tributary (e g , water color is clear, discolored, oily film, water quality, general watershed characteristics, etc ) Explain Identify specific pollutants, if known `A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e g , where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices) Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e g , flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break 'Ibid (iv) Biological Characteristics Channel supports (check all that apply) ❑ Riparian corridor Characteristics (type, average width) ❑ Wetland fringe Characteristics ❑ Habitat for ❑ Federally Listed species Explain findings ❑ Fish /spawn areas Explain findings ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species Explain findings ❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity Explain findings 2 Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics (a) General Wetland Characteristics Properties Wetland size acres Wetland type Explain Forested/open water Wetland quality Explain Fair to Good Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries Explain (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW Flow is Pick L' ist Explain Surface flow is Pick ListList Characteristics Subsurface flow ic�kList Explain findings ❑ Dye (or other) test performed (c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW ❑ Directly abutting ❑ Not directly abutting ❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection Explain ❑ Ecological connection Explain ❑ Separated by berm /barrier Explain (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TN W , Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW Flow is from Pick List Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick istL floodplam (n) Chemical Characteristics Characterize wetland system (e g , water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface, water quality, general watershed characteristics, etc ) Explain Identify specific pollutants if known (m) Biological Characteristics Wetland supports (check all that apply) ❑ Riparian buffer Characteristics (type, average width) ❑ Vegetation type /percent cover Explain ❑ Habitat for ❑ Federally Listed species Explain findings ❑ Fish /spawn areas Explain findings ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species Explain findings ❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity Explain findings typical wetland species - amphibians etc 3 Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis Pick List Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis For each wetland, specify the following Directly abuts9 (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts9 (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological chemical and physical functions being performed C SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and /or biological integrity of a TNW Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (c g between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW) Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplam is not solely determinative of significant nexus Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook Factors to consider include, for example • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW9 • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and hfecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW9 • Does the tributary in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW9 Note the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below 1 Significant nexus findings for non- RPNN'that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below based on the tributary itself then go to Section 1I I D 2 Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section 111 D 3 Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section 111 D D DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS THE SUBJECT WATERS/WE'l LANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 1 TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area ❑ TNWs linear feet width (ft) Or acres ❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs acres 2 RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑_ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial Tributaries of TN W where tributaries have continuous flow seasonally (e g, typically three months each year) are ❑_ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow seasonally' (e g typically three months each year) are .jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section Ill B Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally Provide estimates for. jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply) ❑ Tributary waters linear feet width (fl) ® Other non - wetland waters 0 81 acres identify type(s) of waters Open Water Pond B is a jurisdictional pond connected to RPWs through the abutting wetland and adjoining overflow channel 3 Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into 7 NWs ❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is. jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IiI C Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply) ❑ Tributary waters linear feet width (ft) ❑ Other non - wetland waters acres Identify type(s) of waters 4 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are. jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year -round Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III D 2, above Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW ® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section 111 B and rationale in Section 111 D 2 above Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW Wetland A directly abuts an offsite seasonal RPW with no break in, jurisdiction Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area 0 06 acres 5 Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands have a significant nexus with a TNW are.junsidictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111 C Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres 6 Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs El adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section Ill C Provide estimates for_jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres 7. Impoundments of, jurisdictional waters v As a general rule, the impoundment of a,jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional ❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U S ," or ❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or ❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below) E ISOLATED JINTERSTATE OR INTRA - STATES WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFEC i' INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANN' SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY).10 ❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes ❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce ❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce ❑ interstate isolated waters Explain "See Footnote # 3 y To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III D 6 of the Instructional Guidebook Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps /EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rnpanos ❑ Other factors Explain Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination Provide estimates for Jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply) ❑ Tributary waters linear feet width (ft) ❑ Other non - wetland waters acres Identify type(s) of waters ❑ Wetlands acres NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) ❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements ❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC, 'the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule' (MBR) ❑ Waters do not meet the ` Significant Nexus' standard where such a finding is required for Jurisdiction Explain ❑ Other (explain if not covered above) Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofJurisdiction is the MBR factors (i e , presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional Judgment (check all that apply) ❑ Non - wetland waters (i e , rivers, streams) linear feet width (ft) ❑ Lakes /ponds acres ❑ Other non - wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource ❑ Wetlands acres Provide acreage estimates for non - Jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus standard, where such a finding is required for Jurisdiction (check all that apply) ❑ Non - wetland waters (i e rivers, streams) linear feet, width (ft) ❑ Lakes /ponds acres ❑ Other non - wetland waters acres List type of aquatic resource ❑ Wetlands acres SECTION IV DATA SOURCES A SUPPORTING DATA Data revieN ed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below) ® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant ❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps ❑ Corps navigable waters' study ❑ U S Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas ❑ USGS NHD data ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps ® U S Geological Survey map(s) Cite scale & quad name ® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Citation ❑ National wetlands inventory map(s) Cite name ❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s) ❑ FEMA /FIRM maps ❑ 100 -year Floodplam Elevation is (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ® Photographs ® Aerial (Name & Date) or ❑ Other (Name & Date) ❑ Previous determination(s) File no and date of response letter ❑ Applicable /supporting case law ❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature ❑ Other information (please specify) B ADD1710NAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD R� ,el a a� a� V a V) -v W L C CO C W 06 Y W P C n , ' W Threatened & Endangered Species ~ Report Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation For LAKE HARMONY PROPERTY Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Chwilatte Office: 10612 -D Providence Rd PP7B 550 Charlotto. NC 26277 V" 904 -2277 len.rindner nd&ep#,ccm By: Lisa R Gaffney January 21, 2015 Updated May 27, 2015 www.wedV)&w&G0M Leonard S ILndner, PLLC Asheville Offim 1070 Tunnel Rd, MIS I Sulin 10. PiNB 263 Asharlle, NC 26805 FM 7087059 emanda. Lake Harmony — Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION: The approximately 8 acre Lake Harmony site Is located dust south of Mt Harmony Church Road, and east of Hwy 74, In Mecklenburg County, North Carolina The site can be found on the Matthews USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map, latitude is 35 1150 °N, longitude is 80 6756 OW The topography consists of gently sloped upland with an open water pond (in part) and the elevation ranges from 700 to 730 ft (Figure 1) Figure 1: cj 7. e < t 7y11`Jj ,a r rfi SITE 1 r° 7: ° M-7 e 1. Sp� I ti tam j� ' v `�_•_ �k ' °I'�` ^..� �'� `' 14) `�v fi93 NORTH FORK 1 • �} C� ,�°'`•«.'`$�°'I„a,gP �'��,!� a CROOKED CREEK • ^� ' e�' �p�} Y ✓`° �. -.,,� I' �+° a �F" °t \ • ,\ lqr�/ b , `t f �!'._�.�1 � y �. ° J LOCATION ' SCALE Lat 35 11 ; -NA *,124,000 I Long 80 67431 °W N � ; USGS QUAD v/ ?,� HUC 03040105 �' - Mat`thews,NCP�e+�0'f•;fA,t FIGURE NO 1 LAKE HARMONY ESTATES Drawn By Reviewed By Mecklenburg, NC NRN LSR DATE USGS MAP - WATERS OF THE U S. EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 12/18/14 / ° SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S Rindner, PLLC Lake Harmony — Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation METHODOLOGY: The US Fish and Wildlife Service website http / /www fws gov /endangered/ was referenced to determine the occurrence of Threatened and Endangered species for Mecklenburg County North Carolina (Table 1) Table 1 summarizes listed /protected species recognized in Mecklenburg County as of May 27, 2015 Maps and aerial photographs were assembled and the site was investigated on January 16, 2015 Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for Mecklenburg County County: Mecklenburg, NC *Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service * *Database search performed on May 27, 2015 Group Name Status i Lead Office Clams Carolina heelsplitter Endangered Asheville Ecological (Lasmicrona decorata) i Services Field Office Flowering Smooth coneflower (Echinacea Endangered Raleigh Ecological laevi ata ) Plants Services Field Office Flowering Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered Asheville Ecological Plants (Hehanthus schweinitzn) Services Field Office r Flowering Michaux's sumac (Rhus Endangered Raleigh Ecological Plants ! michauxii , Services Field Office Mammals Northern Long -Eared Bat Threatened Twin Cities Ecological (Mvotis septentnonalis) Services Field Office [Birds �— Bald Eagle (Hahaeetus — ' Protected Great Lakes -Big Rivers — leucocephalus) under the Bald Region (Region 3) and Golden Eagle Protection Act Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard $ Pindner, PLLC - -j Lake Harmony — Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation Three plant species with federal protection were included in the survey efforts Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schwetnitzlt), listed as Federally Endangered, is typically found in open habitats which historically have been maintained by wildfires and grazing bison and elk herds Now most occurrences are limited to roadsides, woodland and field edges, and utility rights -of -way (ROW) • Smooth Coneflower (Echtnacea laev►gata), listed as Federally Endangered, is typically found in open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clear cuts, dry limestone bluffs and power line rights -of -way, requiring abundant sunlight and little competition from other plant species • Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii), listed as Federally Endangered, requires habitat of sandy forests and woodland edges This species requires periodic fire as a part of its ecology A total of three animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in Mecklenburg County Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large bodies of open water such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers, where there are suitable fish populations and tall trees for nesting and roosting Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally Endangered, is restricted to cool, clean, well- oxygenated water Stable, silt- free stream beds are required for this species Typically stable areas occur where the stream banks are well- vegetated with trees and shrubs Northern Long -eared Bat (Myotis septentrionahs), listed as Federally Threatened During summer, northern long -eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees Males and non - reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds Northern long -eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula Wetlands and EirAronmental Planning Group Leonard S. Pindner, PLLC Lake Harmony — Threatened /Endangered/Protected Species Evaluation RESULTS: Habitat Descriptions (Species lists reflect the seasonality of the survey) The site is characterized by a semi -open pine dominated woods, an open water pond with wetland fringe, mowed Fescue (Festuca sp ) landscape next to the pond, and a small power line right of way covered in successional tree saplings and scrub /shrub thickets on the western boundary and along Mt Harmony Church Road The Fescue landscape and roadside have been recently mowed The disturbed, pine dominated woods on the site have an average diameter at breast height (DBH) for the canopy trees of 8 Inches, with some larger trees present Species present are Shortleaf Pine (P echinata), Post Oak (Q stellata), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styractflua), and Yellow Poplar (Linodendron tulipifera) Subcanopy species include Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), American Holly (Ilex opaca), Winged Elm (Ulmus alata), and Black Cherry (Prunus serohna) The shrubs include Russian Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) The herb layer is sparse, and includes Ebony Spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron) and Panic grass (Panicum sp) Vines present are Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Catbriar (Smilax sp ), Crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata), Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) The power line rights of way are covered mostly with a scrub /shrub complex dominated by Chinese Privet, and Blackberry (Rubus spp ), with Japanese Honeysuckle, Goldenrod (Solidago sp ), Pokeweed (Phytolacca amencana), Dog Fennel (Eupatonum capillifolium) and saplings of Short-leaf Pine, Sweet -gum, Tulip Poplar, Red Cedar, Winged Elm, Black Cherry and Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Endangered /Protected Species Results Although potential habitat exists for Schweinitz's Sunflower, Michaux's Sumac and Smooth Coneflower along the roadside corridor, power line ROW, and woods edges, examination of these areas revealed no occurrences on -site • No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles, and there were no sightings nor were any nesting sites observed • The site has no suitable stream habitat for Carolina Heelslpitter Based on existing documentation, Carolina Heelsplitter populations have not been previously identified in this basin Wetlands and ErMronmental Planning Group Leonard S Rindner, PLLC Lake Harmony — Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation • According to Information supplied by USFWS, potential late spring /summer habitat exists for the Northern Long- Eared Bat (NLEB) within forested areas and along wooded edges on site Therefore, this site may be subject to section 7 and /or section 9 of the ESA which may affect tree clearing activities from May 15 through August 15 RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend further consultation with you and your project planners and engineers regarding coordination with USFWS and other federal and state agencies Respectfully submitted, Lisa R Gaffney Biologist May 27, 2015 Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard $ kindner, PLLC Lake Harmony — ThreatenediEndangei °ed /Protected Species Evaluation Curriculum Vitae for: Lisa R. Gaffney Biologist / Botanist B S Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Ms Gaffney is a classically trained Botanist and has conducted field work and investigative studies covering thousands of cumulative acres in both North and South Carolina since 1996, including • Cabarrus County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 1997 -1998 Organized, directed, and worked in field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, collecting field data and writing reports • Lincoln County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 2000 -2001 Organized, directed, and worked in field survey of natural areas in Lincoln County for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, collecting field data and writing reports • Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys and Natural Communities Evaluation for over 20,000 acres in North and South Carolina, 1996 - present • Located and identified at least six previously unreported populations of Federally Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) • Located and identified four previously unreported populations of Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf • Located a previously unknown population of Federally Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower at Redlair Farm in Gaston County, NC This discovery led (in part) to the purchase of the site by the State of North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, now called Redlair Preserve This population has become a Recovery Site for the species • Participated in numerous Piedmont Prairie restoration projects in Mecklenburg, Union, Cabarrus and Gaston Counties, North Carolina Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S Rindner, PLLC