20231100 Ver 1_More Info Received_20231005 (4)

Baker, Caroline D
From:
Heath Caldwell <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:14 PM
To:
Homewood, Sue
Cc:
Hoy, Amie; Stock, N Carmela CIV USARMY CESAS (USA); Perez, Douglas J CIV (USA);
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Kelsey Strausbaugh; Len Rindner
Subject:
[External] Re: Request for Additional Information for Mayes Meadow Residential
Development - Mecklenburg County - DWR#20231100
Attachments:
ProjectCost_Analysis.pdf, ORM_Upload_Sheet_Consolidated _
2023Rule_Mayes Update.xlsm; Mayes Meadow PCN Updates_100523Submitted.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Thanks Sue.
As for your comment #1, we are in the process of working with Unique Places to Save and WLS to submit the
modification to the conservation easement to accommodate these changes (Please see Figure 7 in the attached updated
permit application for proposed updates to the current conservation easement as well as additional information
regarding the updated jurisdictional determination/aquatic resources information and impact calculations). The
conservation easement had breaks already established for the sewer and greenway trail but the breaks for these
infrastructure features were not placed in the correct locations. Once we received feedback from Charlotte and
Corneilus as to where the sewer and greenway trail needed to be, we began working to close the initial breaks in the
easement and create the correct breaks. These breaks will include the easement area required for the proposed sewer
line crossing as well as the proposed greenway (as shown on the attached application exhibits). In all, we will end up
adding more easement as well as more protected streams and wetlands to the mitigation footprint. We are hoping you
can go ahead and continue your review of the application so that when the modification is complete, everything will
align with how the project is proposed in the updated application. Or if possible, would you be able to issue the permit
based on the condition that the project components must be in compliance with the updated requirements of the Upper
Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank?
Regarding your second comment, please see the attached Project Cost Analysis which provides the financial aspects of
maintaining a viable project as well as the issues below which define the constraints associated with this development
and the subsequent surface water impacts proposed.
• The intersection of the entrance to Mayes Road was determined by NCDOT.
• Original road design and proposed lots impacted 582 linear feet of streams and over 0.4 acre of wetlands. Note that
582 linear feet was 0.05 acres of stream impact based on survey of the OHWL. Please see the Engineer Coordination
section of the attached application for additional information on the initial plan alternative.
• In anticipation of comments from the USACE/NCDEQas well as identifying the anticipated cost of mitigation, WEPG
consulted and coordinated with the client and civil engineer to further avoid and minimize impacts prior to submission
of a PCN which included the abovementioned alternative.
• Based on coordination with client and civil engineer, impacts to streams were reduced by 65% to 207 linear feet, of

which 195 If has been identified as a low value intermittent stream according to NCSAM methodology (See information
and photos in the NCSAM/NCWAM section of the attached updated application).
• Impacts were limited by moving the road utilizing minimum design standards; minimizing fill slopes; and using
basement lot house plans. Reducing impacts further would require significant and high retaining walls and would not be
practical or safe for homeowners.
• Total permanent stream impacts are now less than .02 acres based on the OHWL; are minimized to 207 linear feet of
intermittent stream and include less than 0.10 of permanent wetland impacts. In consideration of the features that are
associated with the proposed residential development (wetlands and streams outside of the current conservation
easement), over 90% of the streams and over 95% of wetlands on the site are undisturbed. The project will be
developed in strict accordance with Mecklenburg County stormwater management and sedimentation and erosion
control requirements.
Please let me know if you have any additional comments or questions regarding the above answers or the attached
application. Carmela, I realize I owe you some additional answers too and will be sending those to you in the near
future. Thank you -
Heath Caldwell
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
www.wetlands-epg.com
704.999.5279
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 1:08 PM Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]> wrote:
Heath,
The Division has conducted a review of the above noted application and requires additional information to complete
our 401 certification review. Please provide the information requested below within 30 days of this email. The Division
will consider the application to be "on hold" until receipt of a complete response.
1. It appears that the proposed within the adjacent conservation easement (utility construction/permanent
easement, community greenway, and stormwater outlet device) would not be in compliance with the
conservation easement requirements of the Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank. Please either modify your
project to ensure it meets the terms and conditions of the Conservation Easement, or provide documentation
from the conservation easement holder, Unique Places to Save, that all proposed impacts are allowed within
the easement pursuant to the established deed restrictions.
2. The Division appreciates the efforts made to reduce stream and wetland impacts from the proposed project,
however it appears that a small reduction in lots (approximately 4-6) would allow for further minimization (or
possibly complete avoidance) of impacts to streams B & C and wetland CC. The Division understands the
required location for the proposed Road A, as well as the need for a sufficient fill slope to support the road,
however the addition of lots at this location appear to increase the total impacts to streams and wetlands in
this location beyond that necessary to support Road A. Given the significant number of lots within the overall
project, please provide justification as to why the loss of these few lots would cause the project to no longer be
viable.

Thanks,
Sue Homewood (she/her/hers)
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
[e-mail] please note my new email address
336 813 1863 mobile
919-707-3679 office
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.
Heath Caldwell
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
www.wetlands-epg.com
704.999.5279