20231100 Ver 1_Mayes Meadow PCN_20230807

WEPG
Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
SAW — 2021 - 00907 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Mayes Meadow
2. Work Type: Private❑ Institutional ❑
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
NWP request for residential development
Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
Government ❑ Commercial ❑
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Bayard Development, LLC
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: WEPG, PLLC c/o Heath Caldwell
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.4566,-80.8275
12229 Mayes Road, Huntersville, NC 28078
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 00755101, 00755105
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Huntersville
11. Project Information —Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: South Prong Rocky River
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]:Rocky (03040105)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
U Nationwide Permit # 29
❑ Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
�✓ Section 10 & 404 ❑
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
d41 ff-TortX1N7i11. 9%

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
August 7, 2023
Mr. Douglas Perez
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Mr. Andrew Pitner
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Mr. Paul Wojoski
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
Wetlands & Storm Water Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Subiect: SAW-2021-00907; Pre -Construction Notification for NWP #29 for the Mayes
Meadow site in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Messrs. Perez, Pitner, Wojoski, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for Nationwide Permit #29 for the Mayes Meadow site on 96.5 acres
located north of Mayes Road, near it's intersection with Westmoreland Road in Huntersville,
NC. The site is a proposed residential development and consists of eight streams and six
wetlands. The site was verified by the USACE in May 2021. Please refer to the Jurisdictional
Determination Information section for information on onsite surface waters.
As shown on the attached exhibits, the proposed project will include permanent impacts to three
wetlands and four streams for site grading and a road crossing required for site connectivity, as
well as wetland conversion for utility installation. Overall impacts to site surface waters
associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection, design, and
location/orientation of the proposed lots and access routes. Efforts of minimization were
implemented during design to preserve existing site hydrology and limit adverse effects to
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetiands-epg.com
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PM 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
existing, onsite natural habitat; however, site constraints and required local ordinances limited
the potential to further limit these impacts. For example:
• The Town of Cornelius classifies Mayes Road as a rural road designation requiring for
the setback along the frontage to be 200' limiting lots from development within this
setback. This limits shifting any development adjacent to Mayes Road.
• The site was required to be zoned as a conservation subdivision which required the
project to have a minimum of 45% open space. As a result, the frontage area along Mayes
Road was to be preserved as a condition of the rezoning approval, limiting the potential
to shift the alignments of Roads A and B.
• The intersection points for proposed Roads `A' and B' to Mayes Road are also
constrained to their current location based on intersection separation requirements set by
NCDOT. Intersection Road B'/ Mayes Road is determined by the proximity of the
intersection of Westmoreland Road with Mayes Road. From the point of intersection of
Road B' with Mayes Road, we are required to have 200 linear feet of separation between
intersection points of Road B' and the Westmoreland Road intersection. Roads `A' and
B' also were required to have a minimum separation of 550 LF.
• Due to the requirement to preserve the open space/meadow, the area in the meadow area
is more closely tied to the existing grade elevation. To minimize impacts to the
jurisdictional stream/wetlands behind the lots fronting on Road `A', the plans have
proposed a retaining wall and cut slopes on the meadow side of Road `A' to help account
for the grade change.
• The lot development proposes five-foot crawls and walk -out basement to tie out to
existing grade to further limit wetland/stream impacts.
• The plans are making efforts to preserve the existing hydrologic conditions at the head of
the streams and wetland areas by routing bypass drainage from the undeveloped meadow
area around our improvements. The bypass storm drainage system will outlet just
downstream of the impacted streams/wetlands. Additionally, our dry detention/sand filter
BMP will also outlet as far upstream as possible in attempt to also preserve hydrology to
adjacent wetland/stream areas.
Following these criteria, the road alignment was manipulated as much as possible within limits
to avoid impacts to site surface waters. Additionally, as a condition of their zoning approval, the
applicant is required to maintain the existing meadow as open space. A copy of the rezoning
documents can be found in the Supplemental Information section. In addition to the proposed
minimization/avoidance methods included in the development plan, construction techniques will
implement approved erosion control methods to supplement minimization of impacts to
onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances. Proposed permanent impacts include 0.044 acres
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
[phone] 2
[e-mail]

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
(Wetlands F, CC, and J) and 207 linear feet/0.017 AC (Stream B and C) of fill, conversion
impacts include 0.14 AC (Wetland J) of clearing, and temporary impacts include 0.234 AC
(Wetland J) for sanitary sewer installation. Please refer to the NCSAM/NCWAM section for
information on stream and wetland quality. Temporary wetland and conversion impacts will
have topsoil replaced and be reestablished with native stabilization mix. The applicant has
demonstrated avoidance and minimization efforts, while also working within the constraints of
the City of Cornelius's zoning approval, by avoiding 97% of onsite streams and 99% of onsite
wetlands and staying well withing NWP impact thresholds. Please refer to the Engineering
Coordination section for additional details on the steps taken to reduce site impacts.
Also enclosed is a copy of our Threatened/Endangered Species Evaluation for the site. No listed
species were identified within the project area and we believe that there will be no effect on
listed species, or their critical habitat as designated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. The concurrence response from Fish and Wildlife Service is included. Additionally enclosed
is a copy of our Cultural Resource report. No NRHP-listed properties, determined -eligible
properties, study -listed resources, designated local landmarks or otherwise recorded historic
resources were identified on the site. Thank you for your consideration and please contact me if
you have any questions, [phone] or email at heath. cal dwell( a�wetlands-epg com.
Sincerely,
Heath Caldwell, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetiands-epg.com
Len Rindner, PWS
Principal
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

C
O
V
d
d
Q
L.
N
CL
Permit Application

w A rE�QG
T.
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑X Yes ❑ No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Mayes Meadow
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Huntersville
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Mayes Family Limited; George Mayes Jr
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
George Mayes
3d.
Street address:
12229 Mayes Road
3e.
City, state, zip:
Huntersville, NC 28078
3f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Tim Coey
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Bayard Development, LLC
4d.
Street address:
1108 Industrial Drive
4e.
City, state, zip:
Matthews, NC 28105
4f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Heath Caldwell
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group, PLLC
5c.
Street address:
10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28277
5e.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
00755101, 00755105
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.4566 Longitude:-80.8275
1c.
Property size:
96.5 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
South Prong Rocky River
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
Rocky/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 Mayes Meadow site (+/- 96.5 acres) is located just north of Mayes Road and just east of Hwy 115 in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The
topography is gently to moderately sloped. The elevation ranges from 700 to 800 ft. (Figure 1). This site consists of two homesites, a large hayfield,
wooded slopes and strea
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 6.193
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 6,240
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed development includes impacts to two streams and three wetlands for site access, fill, and grading.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Fill and grading of the site will use standard equipment, excavator, dump truck, track hoe, etc.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑X Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Nic Nelson
Agency/Consultant Company: WEPG
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
This site was verified by B. Roden -Reynolds (USACE) on 5/3/21. A copy of the signed JD approval is included in the Jurisdictional Determination
Information section.
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 ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.0152
W2 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.00429
W3 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.14
W4 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.0049
W5 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.0189
W6 T
Land Clearing
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.234
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.41729
2h. Comments:
W1- Wetland C; W2-Wetland F; W3, W4, W5, W6- Wetland J
W3 impacts are wetland conversion. Topsoil will be replaced and reestablished with native stabilization mix.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 P
Fill
Stream B
INT
Corps
3
147
S2 P
Fill
Stream C
INT
Corps
4
60
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
207
3i. Comments:
S1- 0.0114 AC
S2- 0.0056 AC
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection, design, and location/orientation of the proposed lots and
access routes. The proposed road locations are fixed due to sight lines and distance between intersections requirements by DOT. Following these
criteria and the zoning -required open space, the road alignment was revised to minimize impacts to site surface waters. Previously proposed
alignments resulted in more impacts than currently proposed. Lot sizes were also altered to further minimize impacts. See cover letter for more detail.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize impacts to onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances.
Where possible, 2:1 slopes and the maximum allowable headwalls will be used to minimize impacts.
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
❑ Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
Storm
water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has
not yet been submitted to Town of
Huntersville but will be designed to meet their criteria.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Town of Huntersville
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Town of Huntersville
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes 0 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)?
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,
[]Yes 0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑Yes 0 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 0 No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No
additional phases proposed.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater
generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via 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
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A threatened and endangered species assessment was conducted in which no species were identified. Please also see attached for the FWS
concurrence response.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
No essential fish habitat in this region.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
SHPO's website: https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/
Report from R.S. Webb & Associates
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?
www.fema.gov
https://polaris3g.meeklenburgcountync.gov/
Heath Caldwell
r
08-07-2023
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

AA2ent Authorization Letter
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic
resource (i.e. stream/wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting. The
undersigned, who are either registered property owners or legally authorized to conduct due
diligence activities on the property as identified below, do hereby authorize associates of
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of applicable
permit(s) and/or certification(s).
Project/Site Name: Mayes Meadow
Property Address: 12229 Mayes Road, Huntersville, NC 28078
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 00755101, 00755105
Select one: lam other
Name: Tim Coey
Company: Bayard Development, LLC
Mailing Address: 1108 Industrial Drive, Matthews, NC 28105
Telephone Number: [phone]
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Property Owner l Interested Buyer* / Other*
7-qr
Date
*The Interested Buyer/Other acknowledges that an agreement and/or formal contract to purchase and/or conduct
due diligence activities exists between the currentproperty owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases
where the property is not owned by the signatory.
Charlotte Office: www.wetIands,epg_corii
Asheville Office.
10612wp Providence Rd.
1070 Turinel Rd., Bldg. I
►'MB s50
Suite 10, PMB 2:83
Charlotte, NC 28277
AShpvil e, :NC 28805
[phone]
Ion Andner@wetlands-epgxorn

N
_05
N
Q
05
10
Maps/Plans

Davidson
William Amoy 19
Hough High School
e s G I en a
m m u n Its
01
Dales Rd
Acres:
+/- 96.5
FIGURE
1
03125121
Cornelius
I .
r �
Ba He
Creel
BIFKDAiE
//tiIfILLAG.E '
r
73
I
if
Beverly Commu
by JP Orle
MAYES MEADOW
Mecklenburg Co., NC
VICINITY MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
2416
Hopewell
24 99
11
2415 --
Caldwell
73
1 �. f
Prepared for:
WARD DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
BILK I ALL
0
6
Gabe

be
id r�Phut grapby
t
C 8, S
Aerial Imagery Provided. }
,-.NUNN%
L�
OWN a
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
[e-mail]
[phone]
www.wetiands-epg.com

Iki r;c 'Z'
J
4"
A.
;,3 A
-Ai
SOUTH PRONG ROCKY RIVER
A
l � ��.�� ��� '1 ,� `- �f ��� �J . ��t -ram,.- ��. r
J,
V i
PROJECT BOUNDARY
�� f it STUDY LIMITS ¢
ir
7%
17�
'Idv a Mill
IL
LOCATION
Lat: 35.4566 2N
Long: -80.8275 2W USGS QUAD
SCALE
HUC: 03040105 Cornelius, NC
ROCKY 1993 1:241000 1
Acres: MAYES MEADOW Prepared for:
+/-96.5 Mecklenburg Co., NC BAYARD DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE
3 PARCEL MAP Drawn B d By:
10126120 Subject to USACEINCDEQ verification BLK

CL - _-
Ce `1113Z
Cee 2
*7k
V11'�cE
4 . ► . k p
EnD
WkB�
EnB
En
ttnH
t � .,CJ W kS
��
,,AVE
C IM
a
Fill
F'aE
j
%f
' �CeBZ
r aD
M0
-� WkB
/0
E rid
-
Ce0?
Ce92
Fn
u
W kE
f:r{ii
F n8
Q� r
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
He9
4g
Hef3
�1
?
V aH
�*.-• CeO2
3
Caldwe{I
-`
3
G60;' WkB
NRCS
Soil Survey Manuscript
Mecklenburg
County
(1980)
Lei
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
. ;
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
60.8
63.0%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Cell
Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
3.2
3.3%
1
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
1.1%
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8
1.0
percent slopes
MO
Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent
11.1
11.5%
slopes, frequently flooded
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25
9.6
10.0%
percent slopes
VaB
Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8
2.7
2.8%
percent slopes
WkE
Wilkes loam; 15 to 25 percent
8.1
8.4%
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
96.6
100.0%
Acres:
MAYES MEADOW
Prepared for:
+/- 96.5
Mecklenburg Co., NC
BAYARD
DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE
SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT MAP
Drawn
By:
Reviewed By:
4
,
10126120
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
BLK
ALL

PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
PARCEL: 00755101
MAYES FAMILY LIMITED
12229 MAYES RD
HUNTERSVILLE, NC 28078
�_S1irG}11{'J9_ _
t
00 r
i
7 # PARCEL:00755105
_ + GEORGE MAYES JR
Parcel Information Provided S 12415 MAYES RD
by Mecklenburg County GIS HUNTERSVILLE, NC 28078
r~
Acres: MAYES MEADOW Prepared for: IWEPG
+/- 96.5 Mecklenburg Co., NC BAYARD DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE
5 PARCEL MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
10126120 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BILK I ALL

OF
NO FEMA FLOODPLAIN AS i �. , : i '•` '
PER CHARLOTTE 1 :�� .= :> ■" �:�� •'
MECKLENBURG POLARIS GIS •;,r.�'': `'__►
y�- p -- R '�•• Irv• -- - -
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
r
10
--
' 35' PC BUFFER
Acres: MAYES MEADOW Prepared for:
+/- 96.5 Mecklenburg Co., NC BAYARD DEVELOPMENT IWEPG
FIGURE
6 FLODDPLAIN MAP Drawn By: Reviewed 3'
10126120 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BILK I ALL

U
1i
U J
Z 1q
9 O/
m m
coN
m
VH
U
O
+!
C i
w
> > w < L4
w Och
w
o
c� o cn
Z c X O Z
R a W w
w �
Vl
J
g
Q
* H
k-No=w—
w —� —
w pw
Q VVf
� g n�
�e
J 0
w
z
J
w
I�
T �
Z
00
0
O
a
00
w
w
M
L.L
}o
o�
cn
o,
w O
2
LU
d
0
z
-H
O
Q_
F
=
m
U
N
c
c
�
o
N
Z
O
U
3
d
2
N
z
O
t:
O
o
Z
�
o�
U
w N
2 c»
W W
�
Z
3
*
N
}
o
:2
\
�3
�
x
w
�
00
F
z
o
* -H
F
y J
w
w
i
Q a
Woof
to Y
C Z
'
FA
cd Z
W
N f
d C wZ
d
d J
V�
L. L'gjpga,,9... V'WV SO I L 6 EZOZ,E/S NOJ 9NI1SIX3 6vp,1!q!q, 93dM\3!glq,1 dwlp qpM p1e""IS-LELO\EZOZ\,,q!.p3-09\16111a-OO4\LL9b\F0NdrSGS\�d

w
o
O
O Qg Z
Z
F
]m.m <
MOODJ �O
Wzw
<O\ w
N0?a. I 0<
d<:3LZ aW<
wwm wa ��
aocIx< q. M
J
OU) z
m
0 111
J
'm
as o
zo L
< O
m
`oo m
W
N W
md'.
'0
m
`m
m
a
a
a
0
co
U
z
Q Z
U
U
w o
IL
o
z o N
o
fn �
U U
W
F
z
a. U
w z
(n
w0�
w
ww0
a g
zLu
w
¢
U) w
w
~
W w w
of
W
a a m
U)
3:
W
Z_
W <
O
02
�\ v�
C3 o <z /
0. VWl
O O
n 0
a.
a cc
a.
14 /
O
o LU
00 W
W
L.L
< <
J 1m
� N
w m
v) od
w
Q
1 1'ellegaue9111V 'M 60 L1 6 EZOZ/E/8'Ntl d 3115 6vp s1!q!q, 93d M\3!gi.gx3l,,dwl p,eIT M pue l"'IS - LELO\EZOZ\,I,q!.1,3 - 09\15"'C - 004\LL9b\FUNdrSGS\ d

N
v0
C
m
80
�3@e
OLIC
U
UZ50
to
-H
l
Lu
NUm \
W
7 r
/ H —
W
\\
C
U
a
O vJ p
Z
i
W C
N wCLW
rA
W
002
m
i13 I
ix
7
a
Z Z
aW
�F-
LU
ti
�j
U
Q
a
z
z
3 a
w
p �U
Q
Q J W
�Q o0
W +I �+I
z
z 2zz
Q g
Lu
w
a U�
O LJ LN
V) 0
Q LU
a 2
C W
}
Q
C
M
N
M
00
l:l 'ell�'u�R"e"W+I E l"l l"6 ECOi1E�6'iUMd W!'6^W sIW! W3 `73dM1YY!R3 l�atllul R'e�a/M1 P'a wB�+15 - IERi�E2orA!9!4"i' � 6!AO' W WLL4Mf011d.�+�SiE

AKO

O
O
Z w M
O N
M
U W W
W y
N Q
/ 0
, 'Qllegaueg... V � V bZ-1 l fi EZOZ/E/8 V-V NOIIJ3S 6vp,1!q!q, 93d M\1!q i,gx3l,edwl p,eIT M pue l"'IS - LELO\EZOZ\,I,q!.Ix3 - O9\15"'O - 004\LL9b\FONdrSOS\ d

O
O
z w m
O N
M
V N W
w w
L Q
/ 0
I.L'gjegap,9... V'WV,ILbEZOZ/E/8'8-9 NODIS 6vp,1!q!q, 93d M\1!q i.gx31 dwlpgpM p1e""IS-LELO\EZOZ\sjiq!gx3-09\6111O-004\LL9b\FONdrSOS\�d

Engineer
Coordination

3/15/22
4677 — Mayes Meadows
Stream and Wetlands Avoidance/Minimization
Based on the Town of Cornelius zoning regulation for a Conservation subdivision, the site
required 45% open space with the meadow area fronting Mayes Road to be preserved as a
condition of the rezoning approval issued by the Town of Cornelius. Thus, the Road 'A' and Road
'B' alignments cannot be shifted closer together based on meeting the minimum standards for
open space/meadow area.
The intersection points for proposed Roads 'A' and 'B' to Mayes Road are also constrained to
their current location based on intersection separation requirements set forth by NCDOT.
Intersection Road 'B'/ Mayes Road is determined by the proximity of the intersection of
Westmoreland Road with Mayes Road. From the point of intersection of Road 'B' with Mayes
Road, we are required to have 200 linear feet of separation between intersection points of Road
'B' and the Westmoreland Road intersection. Roads 'A' and 'B' also were required to have a
minimum separation of 550 LF.
The Town of Cornelius classifies Mayes Road as a rural road designation requiring for the
setback along the frontage to be 200' limiting lots from development within this setback, which
means we cannot shift the houses further towards Mayes Road to provide a gap in lots at the
stream crossing/wetlands conflict.
4. Due to the requirement to preserve the open space/meadow, the site in the meadow area is
more closely tied to the existing grade elevation. To minimize impacts to the jurisdictional
stream/wetlands behind the lots fronting on Road 'A', the plans have proposed a retaining wall
and cut slopes on the meadow side of Road 'A' to help account for the grade change. The lot
development also proposes 5' crawls and walk -out basements for the lots in the area of the
impacts to further help reduce the amount of grading in wetland areas to tie out to existing
grade.
The mitigation plans are making efforts to preserve the existing hydrologic conditions at the
head of the stream by routing bypass drainage from the undeveloped meadow area around our
improvements. The bypass storm drainage system will outlet just downstream of the impacted
wetlands. Additionally, our dry detention/sand filter BMP will also outlet as far upstream as
possible in attempt to also preserve hydrology.

Z z
Q LU
Z~
LU
L ////I/
M.- \\\ \ \ 0

=
J >N
©
az
Z
Q Z
m y
0
O
O 0 `W
LU
/ N
LU « Q 0 y o
Nw Z Z
LL
w W C7 W dq ov
Q � w J W N avE
Q 0 y e vadad�
eJ�
cl
as°1"
---
000-11
%—
3 0
O
G
WN
Sm
-i9'L6L 3d-H „Sl
—
\ LLI
H y
\. ��LU
LLI
IZ
�� ? CO W

NCSAM / NCWAM

bill- r14
r LL l0
O
LJLJ
W
i .IF
� J
Q
J
' 4�-
LLI W
a
r � W o LU a
_ F-
zo
� �r p 4 o z
LL,
Oz ?j
_ a U o
CWC W v
C �
_ LA ( Q
W N
r J Q N c
{ram L"a _ z� °�
rr Z F In CC O
r4 Z C 0
CL
r 1 (ACL
++ � W Z
z ,
LL '�
LL �
f'r f 1 Q a -I ■ u •, LL
�rf f V F
1 Z LU
N Q
V
r F
LU
. 0 Z3:
56
r 11 •�- i W
r f� Z
"
r� til a a W
•,• LL 41 W Ljj
LL
�.
r LL 1
r f� W

PHOTO 2 - VIEW STREAM D EVALUATION REACH
DATE/TIME 2023:06:29- 10:09:00
COORDINATES: 35.4551,-80.8286
Mayes Meadow
Mecklenburg County, NC-6/29/23
Wetlands and Envlronmemd Planning Group Leonard 5_ Rindner. PLLC.

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: SAW-2021-00907 NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mayes Meadow 2. Date of evaluation: 6/29/23
3. Applicant/owner name: Bayard Development 4. Assessor name/organization: HAC, ALL
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Rocky on USGS 7.5-minute quad: South Prong Rocky River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.4553,-80.8281
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (I) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
®A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mayes Meadow Date of Assessment 6/29/23
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization HAC, ALL
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mayes Meadow 2. Date of evaluation: 6/29/23
3. Applicant/owner name: Bayard Development 4. Assessor name/organization: HAC, ALL
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Rocky on USGS 7.5-minute quad: South Prong Rocky River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.4551,-80.8284
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream C 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 150
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.25 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (I) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mayes Meadow Date of Assessment 6/29/23
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization HAC, ALL
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mayes Meadow 2. Date of evaluation: 6/29/23
3. Applicant/owner name: Bayard Development 4. Assessor name/organization: HAC, ALL
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Rocky on USGS 7.5-minute quad: South Prong Rocky River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.4552,-80.8286
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream D 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 40
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (I) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mayes Meadow Date of Assessment 6/29/23
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization HAC, ALL
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
HIGH
HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Mayes Meadow
Date of Evaluation
6/29/23
Applicant/Owner Name
Bayard Development
Wetland Site Name
Wetland CC
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
HAC, ALL
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
South Prong Rocky River
River Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040105
County
Mecklenburg
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
M Yes I-1 No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.4551.-80.8284
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 nearby septic
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 apply to 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 by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. 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 Capacity and 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).
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
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑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. ®A 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 — opportunity metric
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 wetland 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 and
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
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 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-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ 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
❑A ❑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
❑G ❑G 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.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B 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).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C 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
❑G ®G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
®H ❑H ®H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑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 may be 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
❑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."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A 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.
®B 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.
❑C 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 — assessment area/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
T
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
s ❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
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).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A 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).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/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 ❑B ❑C ®D
JI
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.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland CC Date of Assessment 6/29/23
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization HAC, ALL
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
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) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Mayes Meadow
Date of Evaluation
6/29/23
Applicant/Owner Name
Bayard Development
Wetland Site Name
Wetland FF
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
HAC, ALL
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
South Prong Rocky River
River Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040105
County
Mecklenburg
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
M Yes I-1 No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.4553.-80.8284
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 nearby septic
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 apply to 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 by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. 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 Capacity and 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).
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
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑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. ®A 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 — opportunity metric
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 wetland 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 and
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
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 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-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ 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
❑A ❑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
❑G ❑G 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.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B 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).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C 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
®G ®G ®G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑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 may be 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
❑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."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A 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.
®B 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.
❑C 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 — assessment area/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
T
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
s ❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
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).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A 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).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/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 ❑B ❑C ®D
JI
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.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland is adjacent to confluence to 3 tributarie. Adjacent to agriculture and residential parcels.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland FF Date of Assessment 6/29/23
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization HAC, ALL
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) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition HIGH
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

O
.4-j
co
E
O
Supplemental
Information

July 27, 2021
MAYOR
WOODY WASHAM, JR.
COMMISSIONERS
Owner/Developer:
Bayard Simonini, LLC
DENIS BILODEAU
JIM DUKE
1108 Industrial Dr.
MICHAELF. MILTICH
Matthews, NC 28105
THURMAN ROSS, JR
TRICIASISSON
Acreage:
90.81 Acres
TowN MANAGFR
Tax Parcel
00755101, 00755105
ANDREW GRANT
Location: 12411 Mayes Road
Approved Zoning: CZ
Dear Bayard Simonini LLC,
This correspondence shall serve as approval of the above referenced Rezoning
(REZ 09-20 Mayes Meadow). On Monday, May 17th, 2021 the Town of Cornelius
Board of Commissioners approved the rezoning of the above referenced parcel
based on the site -specific plan and as documented on the enclosed ordinance.
A concept plan will need to be submitted and approved by Mecklenburg County
Land Use and Environmental Services Agency (LUESA). Following the concept
plan approval, construction documents may be submitted electronically and
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Mecklenburg County
LUESA in accordance with the approved site plan and agreed to conditions prior
to the issuance of building permits. All required improvements shall be made to
the site prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy unless stated otherwise by
these conditions. Please note that signage is permitted separately and in
accordance with Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code.
Please call the Planning Department at 704-896-2461 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
P.O. Box 399 • CORNMUS, NC 28031
P 704 892 6031 • F 704 896 2462 • Email: [e-mail] • WWW.CORNEIJUS.ORG

Wayne Herron
Deputy Town Manager/ Interim Planning Director
Attachment: Ordinance: 2021-00753
Resolution: 2021-01003

Exhibit B
Conditions of REZ 09-20
I. Town approval is contingent on review and approval by other applicable local, state and
federal agencies.
2. The development shall comply with all other applicable requirements of the Town of
Cornelius Land Development Code.
3. Town approval incorporates and shall comply with any and all submittals in the case file
and correspondence presented to the board in support of this application, including, but not
limited to the following: The site/sketch plan, architectural elevations, and: any other
information related to,this case, or improvements recommended by the Town -and/or other
agencies.
4. The US Postal Service has notified the Town that all future subdivision approvals must
utilize a community mail delivery system. Locations and details of the proposed
community mailboxes must be included in the Construction Documents, and must be
reviewed and approved by the Post Master for this area. The applicant(s) must provide the
Town with written confirmation that the local Post Master is in agreement with the
proposed box locations.
5. The applicant shall provide a greenway connection to the neighboring property to the west
per the Cornelius Comprehensive Parks and Greenways Master Plan. The proposed
Greenway connection must be a 10' paved path constructed in accordance with the Town's
greenway cross section. A natural surface design may be used for all other trails shown on
the proposed plan. The 10' paved path shall be completed prior to the Town accepting the
proposed streets for public maintenance and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
(CO) for the last residential dwelling.
6. The 50' Type A buffer shall remain undisturbed where possible, and any areas inside the
50' buffer that do not include existing significant tree cover shall be planted in accordance
with the Planting Plan included with this rezoning request.
7. The applicant shall install all traffic mitigation items outlined in the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) and NCDOT. These items shall include:
Mayes Road at Westmoreland Road
• Construct an eastbound right -turn lane with 100 feet of full width storage and
appropriate taper.
Maves Road at Site Access A
• Construct Access A as a full -movement access point.
• Construct Access A with one ingress and one egress line with 100 feet of internal
protected stem.
• Construct a westbound right -turn lane with 100 feet of full -width storage and
appropriate taper.
t

Resolution No. 2021 --o i on3
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CORNELIUS BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS PERTAINING TO THE REASONABLENESS AND
CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
REZ 09-20 Mayes Meadow
WHEREAS, Bayard Simonini, LLC, applicant, initiated the process to rezone the property
located at 12229 Mayes Road, (PII) 9: 00755101 and 00755105), which consists of 91.81 acres,
to Conditional Zoning District as shown in Exhibit A, and to use the property in accordance with
the conditions set forth in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to the conditions shown in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statutes 160D-
605, the Town Board considers the proposed plan to be reasonable and consistent with the Land
Use Plan and adopt the following statement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town of Cornelius Board of
Commissioners that the rezoning is consistent with the Town's adopted comprehensive land use
plan and is reasonable and in the public interest because the Land Use Plan categorizes these
properties as Low Density Single Family. Residential developments up to 2 dwelling units per
acre are recommended in the Low Density Single Family area.
Adopted this 17a' day of May, 2021. 4body T. asham, Jr., May
ATTEST:
1, Toth Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney

Exhibit B
Conditions of REZ 09-20
L Town approval is contingent on review and approval by other applicable local, state and
federal agencies.
2. The development shall comply with all other applicable requirements of the Town of
Cornelius Land Development Code,
3. Town approval incorporates and shall comply with any and all submittals in the case file
and correspondence presented to the board in support of this application, including, but not
limited to the following: The site/sketch plan, architectural elevations, and any other
information related- to this case & improvements recommended by the Town and/or other
agencies.
4. The US Postal Service has notified the Town that all future subdivision approvals must
utilize a community mail delivery system. Locations and details of the proposed
community mailboxes must be included in the Construction Documents, and must be
reviewed and approved by the Post Master for this area. The applicant(s) must provide the
Town with written confirmation that the local Post Master is in agreement with the
proposed box locations.
5. The applicant shall provide a greemvay connection to the neighboring property to the west
per the Cornelius Comprehensive Parks and Greenways Master Plan. The proposed
Greenway connection must be a 10' paved path constructed in accordance with the Town, s
greenway cross section. A natural surface design may be used for all other trails shown on
the proposed plan. The 10' paved path shall be completed prior to the Town accepting the
proposed streets for public maintenance and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
(CO) for the last residential dwelling.
6. The 50' Type A buffer shall remain undisturbed where possible, and any areas inside the
50' buffer that do not include existing significant tree cover shall be planted in accordance
with the Planting Plan included with this rezoning request.
The applicant shall install all traffic mitigation items outlined in the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) and NCDOT. These items shall include:
Mayes Road at Westmoreland Road
• Construct an eastbound right -turn lane with 100 feet of full width storage and
appropriate taper.
Maves Road at Site Access A
• Construct Access A as a full -movement access point.
• Construct Access A with one ingress and one egress line with 100 feet of internal
protected stem.
• Construct a westbound right -turn lane with 100 feet of full -width storage and
appropriate taper.

}
a
Q
z
O zo i>
0 H W
z a ❑ ❑
o wo a oo 'o
C�
z
LU
w
0
z
w
Q� �
w
O-
wo
rLU -
8.
2 8

O
.4-j
co
.E
w
jurisdictional
Determination Information

�..
0
u
O
F-
W
O
Z�
W
H
o
LL
LM
r+
�
p a
g�
g"'
L
W
+ 0
W
ON L m
N
U' I- N N
d
LL O =
mLLI
O N a F- . m
f } LL
LL
! f m a -1• 7 Y z J z 000 N Q
LA
- H
r(k. W a k W
m Z
a p z 3
.� z z
r Z N
�
Z W
O
a u
Q Q a LL -'•''` ' •' W CLO 0 u
J N
W a r W N W
o � Z
Z W 0
4
M a Q
O a
N
0
LL
LL
A l LL
LL
} OR
Y — LU N W
+n N Q W y,l H
LU F-
LU
a Q W 0 J 1 CDa
LL 0 Lm 0 J CD a)0
LL 5g� M Q W
N LT k-i L J W d m 0
~ t j W O
W L
N Z fl' ZO Z Z W 6CD 0
z Z Ai J
LA
z
O
LU
V
N
D

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2021-00907 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Cornelius
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Bavard Development, LLC
Tim Coev
Address: 1108 Industrial Drive
Matthews, NC 28105
Telephone Number: [phone]
E-mail: tim(dbavarddevelopment.com
Size (acres) 96.5 Nearest Town Huntersville
Nearest Waterway South Prong Rockv River River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.4566
Longitude:-80.8275
Location description: The review area is located on the north side of Mayes Road; approximately 0.1 miles north of the
intersection of Maves Road and Westmoreland Road. PINS: 00755101 and 00755105. Reference review area description shown
in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled "Figure 1, Vicinity Mad' and dated 03/25/21.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 10/27/2020. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in 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.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 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.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly

SAW-2021-00907
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. 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.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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 property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Brvan Roden-Revnolds at 704-510-1440 or
b ry an. ro d en-reyno ld sC& u s ace. army. mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 5/3/2021.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 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:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shamun, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 Division 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 Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Corps Regulatory Official: 2021.05.03 09:38:47-04'00'
Date of JD: 5/3/2021 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2021-00907
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 Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Wetlands and Environmental Planning Grout)
Daniel Kuefler
Address: 10612-D Providence Road
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone Number: 336-554-2728
E-mail: daniel.kuefler(dwetlands-et)g.com
Property Owner:
Maves Familv Limited; George Maves Jr
George Maves
Address:
12229 Maves Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
Telephone Number:
[phone]
E-mail:
geme.maves(dme.com

O
0
N
u
?
+
V
f
ZLn
f
m
Ja
LU
W
ON
ti
D:
a
°"t
N N
LU
LULU
1 � � LL
0 J
Z LOR Z LOR
Ln LO
LU LU
W �� W
zi O Z
t L
'�..��•'� cif. � i�
W O
CN
D ^ r,
Ur N
LL 0
V
W
L � I
m
LL
LM
W
Co
Z
3 �
z
�
z
� Q O
LU H O
Z W
Ln 0
O
r
T oT.
WZ R
V Z Q LL
Q J LL
Ln_ a LU LL
c Q LU
Lu
p Lu
zoo'
3
a
U
u
J
U
Z
z
Q
U
0
U
z
o
w
O
LA
C:
Y'
LJJ
N
LLI
z
i
p
u
J
c
I
1
Z
0
CQ
C
W
W
O
V
p
~
D J
M-
? r
aLn
Q
n
0
Z
a
L
LL
LL
Li-
LL
z
o
1
f
W
C7
1
Lu
O
F-
W
aa
LLJ
z
LLI
LL
,
o
CD
o
v
O
z
a
Z
g
C
Z
g
-
co
a
v
W
0
M
a�
W
H
W
0
W
}
LU
•_� .~
d m
0
O
-
O
lu
-
Z
z
J
4 '
b

a-J
L
O
Q
oC
r.
Threatened & Endangered Species
Report

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
I en. ri nd ner@wet Ian ds -epg. co m
Evaluation
For: Mayes Meadow
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney
Field investigation conducted October 12, 2021
www.wetlands-epg.co r i
Ashesrile Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Mayes Meadow - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The Mayes Meadow site (+/- 88.3 acres) is located just north of Mayes Road and
just east of Hwy 115 in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. It can be found on
the Cornelius NC USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.4566 N,
longitude is-80.8275 W. The topography is gently to moderately sloped. The
elevation ranges from 700 to 800 ft. (Figure 1). This site consists of two
homesites, a large hayfield, wooded slopes and stream corridors.
Figure 1:
1 � ;, � ` / Fes`. �r�= - j ••r .i
!."
/.
f� SOUTH PRONG ROCKY RIVERA.
��l • r= rr ��, � f . . b � �
r, STUaY LIMfTS � � .• . � � � ��
'Caldwell�—
LOCATION rrr ?
Lat: 35,4566 9N t•` — +e-
IJSGSQUAD ► �1 ` �'. r
Lang:-80.8275 °W
HUC:03040105 CecneHLls, NC SCALE �I l� 1 II i N
1993
ROCKY n s
'L";- MAYES MEADOW P'e�arzd `nr:
48 $3 Mecklenburg Co.. NC
FIGURE
1 LISGS MAP Drawn Ev: Rewewed By:
ID/2D/2I Subject to Umc"CDEQ verijimron RLK -
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Mayes Meadow - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/PEHYW7A5U5FEPG35KAP60BKGOI/resourc
es was referenced to determine the occurrence of Threatened, Endangered and
Protected species for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, the results of which
are listed below (Table 1). Maps and aerial photographs were assembled, and
the site was investigated on October 12, 2021
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Mecklenburg County
County: Mecklenburg, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on October 12, 2021
Group
Name
Status
Record Status
Vascular
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus
Endangered
Current
Plants
schweinitzii)
Vascular
Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea
Endangered
Current
Plants
laevi ata
Vascular
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Endangered
Current
Plants
Vertebrate
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
Protected under the Bald
Current
leucocephalus)
and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
Invertebrate
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
Endangered
Current
decorata
Vertebrate
Northern Long -Eared Bat (Myotis
Threatened
Probable/Potential
septentrionalis)
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Mayes Meadow - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS:
Three plant species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Mecklenburg County:
• Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), listed as Federally Endangered,
is typically found in open habitats which historically have been maintained by
wildfires and grazing bison and elk herds. Now most occurrences are limited to
roadsides, woodland and field edges, and utility rights -of -way (ROW).
• Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), 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.
Four 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 septentrionalis), listed as Federally Threatened.
During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath
bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and non -
reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. It
has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Northern
long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula.
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
4
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Mayes Meadow - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
RESULTS:
This site consists of two homesites, one near the western boundary at Mayes
Road and one centrally located, both having typical lawns and landscaping; large
hayfield; and wooded slopes and stream corridors.
The hay field is dominated by forage grasses and common forbs including
Fescue (Festuca spp.), Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon), Orchardgrass
(Dactylis glomerate), Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Timothy -grass
(Phleum pratense), Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense), White Clover
(Trifolium repens), Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), Plantain (Plantago sp.), Pigweed
(Amaranthus sp.), Sourgrass (Rumex sp.), and Dogbane (Apocynum
cannabinum).
The wooded slopes are dominated by mixed hardwood forest. Canopy trees
include White Oak (Quercus alba), Northern Red Oak (Q. rubra), Southern Red
Oak (Q. falcata), Black Oak (Q. velutina), Willow Oak (Q. phellos), Water Oak (Q.
nigra), Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa), Pignut Hickory (C. glabra), Tulip
Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The
subcanopy contains Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), American Elm (Ulmus
americanus), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American Holly (Ilex opaca), Red
Maple (Acerrubrum), Hackberry (Celtis laevigata), Redbud (Cercis canadensis),
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra), Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Winged Elm (Ulmus
alata), and Black Cherry (Prunus serotina). The shrub layer includes Blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.), American Strawberry Bush (Euonymus americana), and
Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). Vines include Japanese Honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Trumpet Creeper (Campsis radicans), Catbrier (Smilax sp.),
Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Moonseed (Menispermum
canadense), Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). The herb layer includes Christmas Fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
Ebony Spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Panic Grass (Panicum sp.), and
Grapefern (Botrychium sp.).
The roadside and transitional areas are dominated by Fescue turf grass (Festuca
sp.), and common invasive and native species including Johnson
Grass(Sorghum halepense), Ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), Goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
Purple Top (Tripsacum dactyloides), Wingstem (Verbesina sp.), Poke Weed
(Phytolacca americans), Groundsel (Baccharis sp.), Tickseed (Bidens sp.),
Ragwort (Packera sp.), and Beggars Ticks (Desmodium sp.).
WEPG400822
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

Mayes Meadow - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
• All potential habitats for Schweinitz's Sunflower along the roadside,
transitional areas and woods edges were examined, and the species was
not observed. WEPG concludes Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) does not occur on the site.
• All potential habitat for Smooth Coneflower along the roadside, transitional
areas and woods edges were examined, and the species was not
observed. WEPG concludes Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea /aeviaata)
does not occur on the site.
• All potential habitat for Michaux's Sumac along the roadside, transitional
areas and woods edges were examined, and the species was not
observed. WEPG concludes Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) does not
occur on the site.
• No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles, and there were no sightings
nor were any nesting sites observed. WEPG concludes Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us) does not occur on the site.
• Based on existing documentation, Carolina Heelsplitter populations have
not been identified within this basin. WEPG concludes Carolina
Heelsplitter (Las0gona decorata) does not occur on the site.
• Comparing this site location to the USFWS Asheville office's website
(http-//www.fws.gov/asheville/htm Is/project_review/N LE B_in_WNC. htm I)
WEPG concludes the site meets the "exempt" criteria which requires no
further action under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the
Northern Long-eared Bat.
on
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

Mayes Meadow - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the site investigation and the review of available data, WEPG did not
identify any protected species occurring on the subject property. No further
investigation of the presence of protected species on this site is recommended at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
October 15, 2021
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Mayes Meadow - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Curriculum Vitae for:
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist / Botanist
B.S. Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Ms. Gaffney is a classically trained botanist and natural resource biologist and
has conducted field work and investigative studies covering thousands of
cumulative acres in both North and South Carolina since 1996, including:
• Discovered Schweinitz's Sunflower at Redlair Farm in Gaston County, NC.
which led 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.
• Located and identified numerous previously unreported populations of
Federally Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
• Located and identified numerous previously unreported populations of
Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf (Hexastylis nanif/ora).
• Cabarrus County NC Natural Heritage Inventory. Organized, directed,
and conducted field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County for the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
• Lincoln County NC Natural Heritage Inventory. Organized, directed, and
conducted field survey of natural areas in Lincoln County for the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
• Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys and Natural Communities
Evaluation for over 55,000 acres in North and South Carolina, 1996 -
present.
• Participated in numerous Piedmont Prairie restoration projects in both
North and South Carolina.
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

ua
FTM
SE� .Fe
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
December 14, 2021
Lisa Gaffney
WEPG
10612-D Providence Road
PMB 550
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
lisa. a�ykwetlands-ep com
Subject: Mayes Meadow Residential Development; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Lisa Gaffney:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated November 18, 2021, wherein you solicit our comments regarding project -
mediated impacts to federally protected species. We submit the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the Applicant proposes to construct a residential
development and appurtenances on approximately 88 partially forested acres in Statesville, North
Carolina. The information provided suggests that the proposed project will require authorization
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for impacts to Waters of the United States. Based on the
information provided and aerial imagery, onsite habitats are disturbed and contain agricultural
land uses. No project design plans or a description of impacts to onsite habitats have been
prepared or provided at this time.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the action area
(50CFR 402.02) for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
However, the final 4(d) rule, (effective as of February 16, 2016) exempts incidental take of
northern long-eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a
known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during
the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the information provided, the project would occur at
a location where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under
the 4(d) rule for this species. Although not required, we encourage the Applicant to avoid
any associated tree clearing activities during this animal's maternity roosting season from
May 15 — August 15.

Your correspondence indicates that suitable habitat is present onsite for the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). However, targeted botanical surveys conducted
during the appropriate timeframe (October 12, 2021) did not detect evidence for these species at
that time. Based on the information provided, we believe that the probability for inadvertent loss
of these plant species is insignificant and discountable and we would concur with a "may affect,
not likely to adversely affect" determination from the action agency. Botanical survey results are
valid for two years for the purposes of consultation under the Act:
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/Optimal%20Survey%20Windows%20for%20listed%20plant
s%202020.pdf
We believe that suitable habitats do not occur onsite for any other federally protected species,
and we require no further information at this time. Please be aware that obligations under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground -disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing native vegetation
should be retained (if possible) to maintain riparian cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas
should be revegetated with native vegetation as soon as the project is completed. Ground
disturbance should be limited to what will be stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of the
workday. Natural fiber matting (coir) should be used for erosion control as synthetic
netting can trap animals and persist in the environment beyond its intended purpose.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at [e-mail] if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-22-443
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

a-J
L
O
Q
oC
u
O
V)
oC
c�
Cultural Resources
Report

R.S. Webb & Associates
Cultural Resource Management Consultants
2800 Holly Springs Parkway, Suite 200 • P.O. Drawer 1319
Holly Springs, Georgia 30142
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
April 6, 2023
Ms. Amber Lipsky
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
Subject: Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review
Mayes Meadow Development Tract
Caldwell Community, Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
R.S. Webb & Associates No. 21-649-159
Dear Ms. Lipsky:
BACKGROUND
During November 2021 and March 2023, R.S. Webb & Associates (RSWA) conducted a cultural
resources literature review for the proposed Mayes Meadow development tract in the Caldwell
community, near Cornelius, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The project area covers
approximately 39 hectares (97 acres) and is located north of Mayes Road, approximately 940 meters
(m) northeast of its intersection with State Route (SR) 115 (Old Statesville Road) (Figure 1).
For this study, a cultural resource is defined as a discrete area of human activity that is at least 50
years old. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, archeological sites, historic structures,
military earthworks, mines/mining features, historic cemeteries, and historic landscape features. The
purpose of the current study was to determine if previously recorded cultural resources are located
within the project area.
METHODOLOGY
Through the State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) HPOWEB database, information was
reviewed regarding National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, Mecklenburg County
surveyed -only historic resources, local landmarks, state study -list sites and historic resources
determined by the SHPO to be eligible for the NRHP. The North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) provided RSWA with information via email regarding archeological sites within
1.6 kilometers (km) (1.0 mile) of the project area. This information included site forms, location
maps and partial or full reports. Historic county maps were examined online through North Carolina
Maps, a collaboration of the University of North Carolina, the State Archives of North Carolina, and
the Outer Banks History Center. Historic aerial photography and additional historic maps were
accessed through Historicaerials.com, Earthexplorer.usgs.gov, Legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/, and/or
Alabamamaps.ua.edu.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Mayes Meadow Tract, Caldwell, North Carolina Page 2
April 6, 2023
The following primary sources were found to be useful in searching for historic resources within and
adjacent to the project area:
• 1891 Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. reprinted, 1983)
• 1905 USDA Charlotte, North Carolina -South Carolina 15-Minute quadrangle
• 1910 USDA Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1911 County Commissioner's Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1912 Rural Delivery Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1938 and 1969 State Highway and Public Works Commission Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1955, 1960, 1968, 1978, and 1983 aerial photographs of Mecklenburg County
• 1970 USDA Cornelius, NC 7.5-Minute quadrangle
• 1993-2018 Google Earth aerial photography.
RESULTS
Previous Archeological Investigations: OSA records indicate no fewer than seven previous cultural
resources investigations located within 1.0 km of the study tract, three of which could have taken
place within the current study tract (Figure 1). RSWA was provided results reporting for one of
these projects (Abbot 1991), but no reporting is available and the level of work completed is
unknown for two of these projects (ER 90-8014 and ER 17-0777).
Previous Architectural Investigations: According to SHPO personnel, the North Carolina HPOWEB
database is the definitive source of architectural survey information for Mecklenburg County. This
database contains information from the various architectural surveys conducted in Mecklenburg
County, but does not identify the boundaries of individual surveys.
National Register of Historic Places: There are no NRHP-listed historic properties located within
1.0 km of the current study tract.
Mecklenburg County Historic Resources: The HPOWEB database identifies three recorded historic
resources within 1.0 km of the study tract (Figure 1). Resource MK1284 - Caldwell Station School
(building and grounds) is located approximately 830 m southwest of the study tract. This resource
was added to the state Study List in 2001, was determined eligible for the NRHP (DOE) in 2006, and
was designated as a Local Landmark in 2010. Other nearby recorded historic resources are surveyed -
only properties that include: a building with no resource number that was determined ineligible for
the NRHP in 2006, located approximately 830 m southwest of the study tract; and MK2390Bailey
House (surveyed 1988 - no formal eligibility determination) located approximately 970 m northeast
of the project area.
Recorded Archeological Sites: The OSA database identifies 11 recorded archeological resources
within 1.0 km of the project area, eight of which (31MK590, 31MK591 and 31MK600-605) are
within approximately 400 m of project area boundaries (Figure 1). These nearby resources include
six isolated archeological finds and two historic archeological sites (31MK590 and 31MK591). No
recommendations for NRHP-eligibility are recorded on site forms, but only archeological site
31MK590 (420 m southwest of the study tract) was considered worthy of additional work (i.e.
excavation and data recovery); "no further work" was recommended for all other nearby resources.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Mayes Meadow Tract, Caldwell, North Carolina Page 3
April 6, 2023
Revolutionary War Actions/Features: There were at least five reported Revolutionary War military
engagements in Mecklenburg County, west and south of the study tract, and one such event in Iredell
County to the north (Lewis 2021). The two closest events were associated with British withdrawal
from central North Carolina, known as the "Race to the Dan". Following a brief occupation of
Charlotte (September 1780) and a winter respite in South Carolina, the British crossed the Catawba
River under fire at Cowan's Ford (10 km west) on February 1, 1781. On the same day, at Tarrant's
Tavern in Iredell County 9 km northwest of the project area, regrouping patriot militia were scattered
again by British cavalry. The Dan River campaign culminated with the Battle of Guilford
Courthouse (115 km northeast on March 15, 1781), and dealt a fatal blow to the British hold on
North America (Norris and Barefoot 2006).
Civil War Actions/Features: Review of the Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al.
1983) revealed that no significant Civil War military activity occurred in present-day Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. Union armies, following the capture of Columbia, South Carolina on
February 17, 1865, moved north to central Lancaster County, South Carolina (75 km south-
southeast) and then turned northeast to Laurel Hill and Fayetteville, North Carolina, bypassing the
project region. Union cavalry operations, however, occurred west of the Catawba River and within
approximately 12 km of the study tract (Davis et al. 1983).
Historic Cemeteries: The USGS topographic maps reviewed show no mapped cemeteries within 1.0
km of the project area. The closest such mapped feature is associated with Hopewell Church, 1.2
km to the northeast (Figure 1).
Buildings and Features on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs: The historic maps reviewed
depict the locations of 17 buildings in the vicinity of the project area over a 60-year period (Figure
1). The productive maps include the: 1910 soil map; 1911 commissioner's map; 1912 rural delivery
map; 1938 and 1969 county highway maps; and 1970 USGS topographic map. None of these maps
show buildings being located within the project area.
Aerial photographs from 1956 and 1965 show cultivation of heavily terraced land in the east and
south parts of the study tract. Areas adjacent to stream corridors were wooded and there was a
farmstead adjacent to the southwest part of the project area. In 1968, a second building appeared
adjacent to the southwest part of the project area, and a building was located beyond the study tract
to the northeast (Figure 1). By 1998, additional buildings appeared adjacent to the southwest project
area out parcel, in the east -central part of the study tract, and adjacent to the southeast study tract
corner. Cultivation in the study tract was active until at least 1968 and in some areas, and possibly
as late as 1983 in a few locations.
CONCLUSIONS
There are no NRHP-listed properties, determined -eligible properties, study -listed resources,
designated local landmarks, cemeteries, otherwise recorded historic resources, or recorded
archeological sites located within the study tract. The closest recorded cultural resources are isolated
archeological finds located 150 in to 230 in southwest and northeast of the project area. Historic
maps and aerial photographs indicate occupation adjacent to the south part of the study tract,
possibly dating to the early 20t' century, and agricultural use of the study tract throughout much of
the 20" century.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Mayes Meadow Tract, Caldwell, North Carolina Page 4
April 6, 2023
CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Lipsky, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact me at 770-345-0706.
Sincerely,
R.S. WEBB & ASSOCIATES
19ai YtIr
Robert S. (Steve) Webb
President and Senior Principal Archeologist
Attachment: Figure 1
REFERENCES
Abbott, L.E.
1991 Archeological Consulting Services/Intensive Sample Survey: Davidson -Cornelius
Bypass Environmental Assessment, Mecklenburg and Iredell Counties, Noah
Carolina (Technical Report 77). New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia
Davis, G.B., L. J. Perry and J. W. Kirkley, compiled by C. D. Cowles
1983 Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.
Reprint of the 1891-1895 edition. The Fairfax Press, New York.
Lewis, J.D.
2021 The American Revolution in Noah Carolina. Internet -Online. Found at:
http://www.carolana.com/NC/Revolution/home.html. Accessed June 2021.
Norris, D.A. and D.W.Barefoot
2006 "Battle of Charlotte". NCpedia. Online Document. Found at: https
://www.ncpedia.org/ charlotte -battle. Accessed December 1, 2021.

cMK2390
BAAle", House
1%liott (19.9L)
1 Hopewell Church
1 /11
i - y r 1 Cemetery
1 1 .;
k 7151
�311VIK605�¢
fvo' f / ;�
`•. r '.�: Proj'ect Area
I
L� urveye
urn � � I ��. � • , -� A! � w _
\u _ (flu
Unknown) � ` �
1 ; Historic Field
, i ' `�Ac ess Road
t l — 31M31MK601
lA �•1 ? �� 1 (IF) 31MK603 31'1VIK600 y
_J t M�K1284 31MK591 �-_ (IF);
CaldwelkStation
School
.�
i
�� � • .�,.CJ[ l I I 1� Y� � �` . 1 '1 v.'� �� 1 JJI� = r, 1i; �� �r/'y I f L%��� rl! ;! 1t' -
A Structure on Historic Maps and Aerials • Recorded Archeological Site
❑ Recorded Historic Resource Previous Cultural Resource Project
Map Reference: 7.5-Minute USGS Quadrangle Scale
Cornelius (1993), NC 0 610 meters
0 2000 feet
Figure 1 Project Area, Previous Projects and Cultural Resources Location Map