20151051 Ver 1_401 Application_20151015

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Offieea
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. Bryan Tompkins
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. Alan Johnson
NCDENR
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDENR
Division of Water Resources
Wetlands & Storm Water Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
_.. _ ..,.., ...- - -._ ,...,..... .,.,. .....,. .....,._, Leonard S. Ri. _ .,._,..,_...,,...
ndner, PLLC.
October 5, 2015
12 1 9 1
20151051
OCT 6 6 2015
DENR - WATER RESOURCES
401 & BUFFER PERMITTING
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification for NWP #29 for Ingleside residential development,
7115 Bud Henderson Road, Huntersville, NC
Dear Ms. Higgins and Messrs. Elliott, Johnson and Tompkins,
Enclosed is a request for a Nationwide Permit #29 for the proposed residential development
known as Ingleside, in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The site was
delineated during May 2015 with the onsite streams and wetlands just being identified in the
proposed impact areas. As noted in the attached jurisdictional determination information and
plans, there is an existing conservation easement on the property. This easement is associated
with a mitigation banking site for the City of Charlotte Storm Water Services. The areas within
the conservation easement were restored /enhanced per previous plans and are not included in our
jurisdictional determinations or permit requests. The project area also includes a portion of a
proposed sewer line extension that extends off -site (south side of Bud Henderson Road) in which
this area was evaluated as well.
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands- epg.com Asheville Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg, I
PMB 550 Suite 10, FMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (628) 708 -7059
Ien.rindner@wetlands- epg -com• 1 amanda.jones@wetlands- epg.com

YVEP ___ ., ... .... ..... .., ..... .. ,.... ..... .. ... . . . .. .. .
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Proposed permanent impacts for the construction of two road crossings and sewer line total 142
linear feet of stream channel and 0.07 acre of wetlands. Approximately, 0.027 acre of wetlands is
proposed for Road Crossing #1 and 122 linear feet of stream channel and 0.044 acre of wetlands
is proposed for Road Crossing #2. A sewer line crossing of McDowell Creek (adjacent to Bud
Henderson Road) will impact 20 linear feet of stream channel through the placement of rip rap.
During the planning phases of the mitigation bank development, these access points were
excluded from the site so that development could occur in the adjacent uplands therefore the
location of these crossings have already pre- determined which essentially limits avoidance
options other than a no -build scenario which is not practicable as these crossings are needed to
access upland portions of the project. With regards to minimization efforts, the crossings have
been designed to the minimum lengths needed to construct an adequate and safely sized road to
service this development. Bottomless arch culverts /bridges were not evaluated due to the
significant cost increase associated with these structures. Due to the minimal impacts proposed,
no compensatory mitigation is being proposed.
Enclosed is a copy of our Threatened /Endangered Species Evaluation for the site in which
limited habitat exists for the recently listed Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) within the impact
areas. The site is partially wooded so some minimal habitat for NLEB does exist. However, due
to its location which is at least 50 miles away from a known occurrence and the fact that there
will be minimal tree clearing (approximately 1 -acre or less in the impact locations), we believe
this project is not likely to adversely effect the Northern Long Eared Bat and will have no effect
on any other listed species or their critical in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act.
With regards to potential cultural resources that could be affected by the project, enclosed is a
cultural reconnaissance survey conducted by R.S. Webb & Associates. The entire property was
evaluated in January 2015 along with gathering existing data on surrounding properties. There
are no recorded sites currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within
1.6 km of the project site. There is an existing historic house near the project boundary (Ingleside
MK1471) on Bud Henderson Road and is currently not listed but would likely be considered
eligible for listing in the NRHP. Currently there is a vegetated buffer that separates this property
from the project site and the house is located approximately 900 -feet from the nearest proposed
impact area. Based on transects and shovel testing conducted on the site, one archaeological site
was found but would likely be considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The archaeological
site is located in an upland landscape and is approximately 1,500 feet from any proposed impact
area. Since none of these resources are located within the permitted areas and based on the
information supplied above and in the enclosed report, we believe there will be no effect on
historic resources currently listed or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places in accordance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information. Please contact me at 704 - 904 -2277 or
len.rindnera,,wetlands- ep2.com if you have any questions.
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands- epg.com Asheville Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg, I
PMB 550 Sutte 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 706 -7059
Ien.rindner@wetlands- epg.com 2 amanda.lones(pwatiands- epg.com

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Sincerely,
/ ,
A/I
/ �r
Jeff Levi,
Biologist/Botanist
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands-epg.com
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
Len Rindner, PWS
Principal
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd,, Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMIB 283
Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
amanda.jonas@wedandi;-epg.com

c
0
'a
Sr

of \NArF
p Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no.
r, ® �•i Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. 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? I ❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
X❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ
For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
❑ 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
❑ Yes
❑X No
or in -lieu fee program.
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
❑ Yes
❑X No
below.
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: Ingleside
2b.
County: Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town: Huntersville
2d.
Subdivision name: Ingleside
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Agnes B., B Alexander Jr., Lillian Unger, Barnette & others (see attached parcel map)
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: 7107 Bud Henderson Road
3e. City, state, zip: Huntersville, INC, 28078
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent
4b. Name: Fred Matrulli
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
❑X Other, specify: Contracted buyer
Standard Pacific Homes, Charlotte
6701 Carmel Road, Suite 425
Charlotte, NC 28226
704 - 759 -6040
fmatrulli @stanpac.com
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Leonard S. Rindner
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
5d.
City, state, zip:
5e.
Telephone no.:
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
Leonard S. Rindner, LLC -- Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group (WEPG)
1070 Tunnel Road, Bldg 1, Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC, 28805
828 - 699 -3697 (Jeff Levi) ; 704 - 904 -2277 (Len Rindner)
[e-mail]/[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): 1 01502113
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): I Latitude: 35.4039
1c. Property size:
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin:
129.4
Longitude: - 80.918
acres
McDowell Creek
WS -IV
HUC: 03050101 -Catawba
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:
Existing Conservation Easements surround Waters of the U S except in areas previously designated for road crossings. The conservation easements
constitute the McDowell Creek Tributary Bank Site for the City of Charlotte Storm Water Services Bank and are not a part of this project. Upland area
are a mix of agriculture and forested areas. General land use in the vicinity is residential developments and agriculture.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.012
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 200
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To construct 2 road crossings and a sewer line crossing for a residential housing development known as Ingleside.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Two road crossings and a sewer line crossing will be constructed using typical equipment such as backhoes, excavators, and dump trucks.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the ❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ❑ Preliminary ❑X Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Jurisdictional identification and determinations were made on the protect site in association with development of the mitigation bank/conservation
areas. WEPG re- evaluated the areas only within the proposed impact crossings and our findings are reflected in the attached JD package
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
A previous Nationwide Permit #27 was issued in association with the mitigation bank work for the City of Charlotte Storm Water Services in the CE are,
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
6b. If yes, explain.
❑ Yes ❑X No
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
u

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 perennial or intermittent stream
impacts (Including temporary impacts) proposed on the site,
then complete
this
question for all stream sites impacted.
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
number
intermittent (INT)?
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
Temporary (T)
(feet)
W1 P
Culvert
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps I
0.027
W2 P
Culvert
Headwater Wetland
No
Corps
0 044
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
2g. Total
Wetland Impacts: I
0.071
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream
impacts (Including temporary impacts) proposed on the site,
then complete
this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b.
3c. 3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
Stream F PER
Corps
4
122
S2 P
Fill
Stream B PER
Corps
6
20
33
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3i. Comments:
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 142
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 individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c.
4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable)
Type of impact Waterbody Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
type
Temporary (T)
01
Choose one Choose
02
Choose one Choose
03
Choose one Choose
O4
Choose one Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, ther complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Pond ID number Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
purpose of pond (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. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer Impact Reason for impact Stream name Buffer Zone 1 Zone 2
number — mitigation impact impact
Permanent (P) or required? (square (square
Temporary (T) feet) feet)
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10
Yes /No
Yes /No
Yes /No
Yes /No
Yes /No
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Project was designed to minimize road crossings and only two are being proposed to access uplands on the eastern and northern portion of the
protect. These road crossings are required for connectivity and access to these upland areas and are restricted to areas designated for allowable
crossings through negotiations for the conservation easement associated with the mitigation bank project. The sewer line crossing cannot be bored
under the stream due to limited depth of an existing downstream manhole tie -in. No impacts will occur from lot fill or storm water BMPs
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The culvert length, fill, and stabilization within the streams and wetlands have been designed /sized to safely accommodate anticipated residential
traffic but minimize the area of impact to existing surface waters
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity:
Type: Choose one 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 I ❑ 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? 35%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑X Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See attached stormwater plan which includes seven sand filters throughout the site. The stormwater plan has not been approved yet since
Mecklenburg County requires copy of the 401 certification before they will approve the stormwater plan. However, the plan as proposed meets their
current guidelines and is expected to be approved once the 404/401 permits are received
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
Mecklenburg County / Town of Huntserville
Town of Huntersville
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
❑ Yes ❑X No
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
❑ORW
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ❑ Yes ❑X No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑Yes Efl No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application? ❑Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No cumulative effects are anticipated from the project There are no additional properties to be developed that are associated with this protect so all
the impacts have been accounted for. The proposed sewer line will extend off site and parallel to McDowell Creek until it ties into an existing man -hole
on Colonial Garden Drive. No impacts to streams /wetlands are associated with this off -site alignment and an adequate buffer along McDowell Creek
will be maintained
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via installation of sewer lines
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Professional knowledge of threatened /endangered resources in the area. No habitat for potential species exists on site which was determined using an
on -site evaluation
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?
A Cultural Reconnaissance Survey (enclosed) was conducted in which no resources were recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places One archaeological site was discovered outside the permitted areas but would likely not be considered eligible for listing
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
http. / /polarls3g.mecklenburgcountync gov/
❑ Yes ❑X No
, Digitally signed by Jeff Levi
DN cn =Jeff Levi, o =WEPG, ou,
Jeff Levi 'email=leff levi @wetlands -epg com,
Jeff Levi for WEPG c -US,, 10 -05 -2015
f a' Date 2015 10 05 10 03 56 - 04'00'
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature Is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

..........
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PL
LC.
Agent Authorization Letter
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic
resource (i.e. stream /wetlands) identification /snapping 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: Ingleside
Property Address: 7049 Bud Henderson Road, Huntersville, NC 28078
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 01502113
Select one: I am an interested buyer /seller
Name: Fred Matrulli
Company: Standard Pacific Homes, Charlotte
Mailing Address: 6701 Carmel Road, Suite 425, Charlotte, NC 28226
Telephone Number: 704- 759 -6040
Electronic Mail Address: f [e-mail]
�' 7 r le 15-
Profierty Owner Interested Buyer* / Others ' Da
* The Interested Buyen "her acknowledges that an agreement and/or formal contract to purchase and/or conduct
due diligence activities exists beMeen the cw7•entproperty owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases
where the property is not owned by the signatory.
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands-epg.com ill
om Asheville Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd, 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
len.r•indner@wetlands- epg.com 2 amanda.lones @wetlands- epg.com

su,Id�sd�W
Cd

r�
v51ol'c
VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
r,
4�y
Tc:rr }, irI
t
73
Hicks Crossroads
V
r�
r;1 SITE
- ��'Llr_ - -•I Ln
G
a
tying
c000e`
'N
N
1l
�SS
Hicks Crosse
�illc
SITE
Allison ;:e,ry
1pbuiy.
J
It
C
Gilead Rd
5
q jy�
Av
® 2014 Microsoft Gora'poYation ® 2014"Nokia
INGLESIDE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg, NC NRN /P1K LSR
DATE:
VICINITY MAP 12/5/14
(Approximate location) 09/29/15
Subject to USACE/NCDENR verification
�C
G-
rrPC
Gilead Rd
5
q jy�
Av
® 2014 Microsoft Gora'poYation ® 2014"Nokia
INGLESIDE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg, NC NRN /P1K LSR
DATE:
VICINITY MAP 12/5/14
(Approximate location) 09/29/15
Subject to USACE/NCDENR verification

INGLESIDE
Mecklenburg, NC
PARCEL MAP
Source:
http:// polaris3g .mecklenburgcountync.gov/
Subject to USACE/NCDENR verification
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
PJK LSR
DATE:
io /01 /is

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
.r
'r,#
M.
NW
INGLESIDE
Mecklenburg, NC
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
(Approximate Location)
Subject to USACE/NCDENR verification
.a
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
P1K L5R
DATE:
10/01/15

USGS LOCATION MAP
r � ter' • � • } ,�t •::I
m l
2—f
on ctroiire
SIR
I ti 1
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
�' � d f, t ` 1. � �• '
3 -
_ 7
/ 7
1� it 1 `.] :I I �• + r. _ _. - l \ `` ti`
)f l 1 \V
'i .4)v l
±'
_-
t 747
—� SCALE r
II H M _ 1400 700 0 1400(Fmtj LOCATION
'dye Lat: 35.4039 2N
USGS QUAD SCALE Long: 80.9180 2W
Lake Norman South, NC 1:24,000 HUC: 03050101
FIGURE NO. INGLESIDE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
4 Mecklenburg, NC NRN /PJK LSR
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group DATE:
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, USGS LOCATION MAP 12/5/14
(Approximate Location) 09 /29/15
. Subject to USACE/NCDENR verification
..

NRCS SOIL MAP

Soil Map — Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
INGLESIDE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg, NC P1K LSR
DATE:
NRCS SOIL MAP
APPROXIMATE LOCATION 10/02/15
a ° b °,Nlecklentiurg Courity,allorth,Caioliiia (NC119'
° °° °
•I
,Map;Un�t °Symtiol`4
e° ° ° °NIePPUnR'Name °p. ° °g =' Acres'iriA01 °°
• 'Percent;ofA01,
al
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
250.0
47.5%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CeD2
Cecil sandy clay l6arn, 8 to 15
116.0
22.0%
I
percent'slopes, moderately
eroded
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent
34.3
6.5%
slopes
EnD
Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15
15.0
2.8%
percent slopes
MeB
Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2
18.6
3.5%
to 8 percent slopes
MO
Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent
61.5
11.7%
slopes, frequently flooded
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25
22.3
4.2%
percent slopes
Val)
Vance sandy loam; 810 15
2.1
0.4%
percent slopes
W
Water
2.6
0.5%
WkD
Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent
3.9
0.7%
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
526.3
100.0%
INGLESIDE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg, NC P1K LSR
DATE:
NRCS SOIL MAP
APPROXIMATE LOCATION 10/02/15

73
Landworks
hLDesign Group, P.A.
1621 little Avenue, Suite 111
Chadatte, NC 28211
104- 841 -1604 fax: [phone]
w a op
M n.
O�
0QO
VICINITY MAP
INGLESIDE
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC
D
DATE
AUG. 28, 2015
PROJECT NO
15015
SHEET#
COVER
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE
NOT TO SCALE

N.
Itll(II \ lI llI / (\ \) \\ \\ J
>)f� /s�
�\ �II I(� so� \(� --
/
\\ I IIIII'li / / \\
� \ \�Iti��\`� \�\
J1� \'
Itz jr V� (llf 1�
o� 11
11 \r m V \\1\
\\ ! (I \ \�
1))�ly l \ \1\\
3 � _ � 1 �o.\ '� � > / /1)Iltll)1111111111t111 \I\
/ / f 11.
I) t 11 l/ /— /r / /lljlll / /t1 11111
lijfjl��
3 \` N1
PACP�'
LU
�\ "A � Ell I/ «(l(/ fj
I II \ \t( [1 f41
ctI- S161?'o i�lll�
��-�l�>-
\I 11I�* I 1 l (I �I f \\ �J
`)A/
I� N�C NS�11R�V�iT�1� \ \'--�- % � ^✓/)I
)JJ J 2 NNt ?� PttHED)
1 )11 \�\\
cP 9 �\ 3) STING 24'b1,,\
\ 1 OiPES
Lj
m
o
landworks
.e
y
a
Design Group, P.A.
1621 Little Avenue, Suite 111
o
Charlotte, NC 28211
B
1
EXISTING CAFi4flj aC�N
E
RIDGE SUBDIVISr6k,— /, f 1
m
o
landworks
.e
y
a
Design Group, P.A.
1621 Little Avenue, Suite 111
o
Charlotte, NC 28211
104 -841 -1604 fax: [phone]
r-
\ m
N
EXISTING CONDITIONS
INGLESIDE
0' 250' 500' 1000'
SCALE: 1" = 500'
DATE
AUG. 28, 2015
PROJECT NO
15015
SHEET#
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE
WL -1
1 " = 500'

EXISTING / / , .� SEE SHT. WL -6 FOR STREAM
IMPAC+ 1#-3 AT PROPOSED
PROPOSED) ' /// \ \ �EWER GROSSING
I INGLESIDE ( \
� � - pp ,G �=/ - . � , �` ' � � i HERDER$ ROAR_ -�•.
Rul�u �0 11 *AA / I \ \ I
�rI�Ta�iG READ 0
DG€ _-��\ \ I ( I I ll I I // ' slos ►- 1 qDi
� \\ 1 \1 11 1 \ �) I 1 Ilk I I dos\
ice/ WAVE_E�ZTON L.AIVC \� \ \ \ \ \\\ i �(ul \I � I� %lI I\
II \0g
I \\ \\�� 11`, X316
s — k�R°LSTING CARRINGTON
IjI/ I I \810 1 \1 MIDGE SUBDIVISION
\II \1111�� \I \3�'
1 111 /I/I\\ �\\\�\� \\ \111//
\\ \ \ I I 1 1 ' \� \ \11111j 1 > SCI TiNG PERENNIAL
1 1 \II /I / /)Il�/ (� \ \lll
I lj)i � / / /11111 �F M
313 \ \
\xl\ t ROPOSED
\11 \ \ \A 11111 I \ \ \ \ \I \ I p SANITARY SEWER
"LINE (20' MIN. FROM
\ \\ \ \ \ \\ 1 1 0011I IIIIIIIII I \ 111 11 \\ +OP OF BANK)= NO
\ 1 \ \ I 1 11 I I) /// I )i))r /I l ) I �� I II \lll 1111 `��" \ \\ \IMPACT TO STREAM
hl I 11111// 1 I 1111111 111\ \ \' 'PR WETLANDS
% \I/I \ d�\f� CIE T\v l \ O6 :1 AkZ l If Iil\ If\ \� \\\ \III 1 1 j111111 (II
\ R19� Q I� \ „ \l1 \\ \ \ \ \1 \1\ I \•. l \ \11111 \�� I \\ 1
z \ ASS9 . NG�\ \ \ \ 1 I \\ \111 III \ \� \\ ( \� — 1111 \\\I
LLJ
g 1 1 \ I � � \� \� \ � \ \III \ \\ 1 \ \ \ \ \1 \I 1•' I Illlll�,,� 1 \ \1r
\ � I � 1\ III 1 1 \1 \\ \IIII \ \ \ \ \ \1I l •� 111 \11"
)j—
EXIST I Q 4 WSL 1 \II 11 1 \ \ \ \ \l \ \\ • I `� \
\ _ / ANE5 v F At' ) I I I I I
EXI$TIING FO1
/ XIST. t;OLONI L I I I IIIII� 1 1 b ISTdNG SEWER
E
�� /�EN /%);
II ( \I�I�NFOLE
0' 100' 200' 400'
= SCALE: V= 200'
m
DATE
° Landworks OFF -SITE SEWER - EXISTING & PROPOSED CONDITIONS AUG. 28, 2015
• PROJECT NO
N Design Group, P.A. INGLESIDE 15015
a
° 1621 little Avenue, Suite 111 SHEET #
n STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -2
Chadatte, NC 28211 TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA s--
y 104 -841 -1604 fa 704 -841 -1604 1 " = 200' XREF

STREAM IMPACT SUMMARY
ROAD CROSSING #2 - PERENNIAL STREAM F:
SEWER CROSSING #3- PERENNIAL STREAM B
TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS:
122 LF
20 LF
142 LF
EXISTING
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
(HATCHED)
PROPOSED SAND
FILTERS #5 & 6
EXISTING
PERENNIAL STREAM
WETLAND IMPACT SUMMARY
ROAD CROSSING #1: 1160 SF 0.027 AC
ROAD CROSSING #2: 1,905 SF 0.044 AC
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS: 3,065 SF 0.071 AC
PROPOSED SAND FILTERS #3 & 4
EXISTING
EXISTING
CONSERVATION
CONSERVATION
ESMT. (HATCHED)
ESMT.
PROPOSED SAND
(HATCHED) �
FILTER #8
i
r �
a_ PROPOSED SAND `
D-
�J
i
D A
FILTERS #1 & 2
a EXISTING PERENNIAL
w STREAM
3 EXISTING CONSERVATION
/
o ESMT. (HATCHED)
�C
a PROPOSED SAND
FILTER #7
l CARRINGTON RIDGE
PROPOSED SEWER EXTENSION
(IMPACT #3)
L Landworks
Design Group, P.A.
1621 little Avenue, Sufte 111
Charlotte, NC 28211
! 104 -841 -1604 fax: [phone]
0
Y EXISTING STREAM F
�1\ PROPOSED ROAD
CROSSING IMPACT #2 \
ARBORMERE
PHASE 2
(BY OTHERS)
C
1' EXISTING
\�- PERENNIAL
STREAMS
EXI TING D \( /
g p NDERSON R
EXISTING
Z PROPOSED SAN. WETLAND A
a SEWER UNDER /FORMER
EXISTING STORM POND
~ a PIPES (NO IMPACTS) (SHADED)
m a.
0' 250' 500' 1000'
N —��
SCALE: 1" = 500'
DATE
SITE PLAN FOR STREAM & WETLAND IMPACTS SEPT. 18, 2015
PROJECT NO
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET #
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -3
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE
1" = 500'
EXISTING
CONSERVATION
ESMT.
(HATCHED) �
PROP. ROAD
CROSSING
�J
i
D A
IMPACT #1
L _
C
1' EXISTING
\�- PERENNIAL
STREAMS
EXI TING D \( /
g p NDERSON R
EXISTING
Z PROPOSED SAN. WETLAND A
a SEWER UNDER /FORMER
EXISTING STORM POND
~ a PIPES (NO IMPACTS) (SHADED)
m a.
0' 250' 500' 1000'
N —��
SCALE: 1" = 500'
DATE
SITE PLAN FOR STREAM & WETLAND IMPACTS SEPT. 18, 2015
PROJECT NO
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET #
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -3
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE
1" = 500'

PROPOSED IMPACT TO WETLAND B/C
FOR ROAD CROSSING #1: 1,160 S.F.
PROPMPP� � O / � /
SjoR PsN,
0
a
U
Q
a
0
z
5
LU
w
3
EXISTING WETLAND A
(FORMER POND -
SHADED)
Landworks
Design Group, P.A.
1621 Little Avenue, Suite 111
Chadette, NC 28211
! 104 -841 -1604 taz:104- 8414604
35' VEGETATED STREAM
BUFFER EA. SIDE (FROM TOP
OF BANK)
EXISTING
PERENNIAL
STREAM "A"
/1
SEE SHEETS WL -7
& WL -9 FOR CULVERT #1
PROFILE, ELEVATION,
AND DETAIL
EXISTING
WETLAND B/C
VVA 1 CK UUHLI I T \
BASIN
N
0' 30' 60' 120'
SCALE: 1" = 60'
DATE
WETLAND IMPACT #1 AT ROAD CROSSING #1 SEPT. 18, 2015
PROJECT NO
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET #
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC yWL-4
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE
1 " =60'

'0
lc
\ r
4
A
PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
PERENNIAL STREAM F AND
WETLAND D /E:
122 LF STREAM IMPACT
(INCLUDES 58 LF RIP
RAP AND 64 LF CULVERT)
1,905 SF WETLAND
Of
\1
EXISTING
WETLAND D/E
4 +.
is
0 i .
Q
C
�
EXISTING
cc PERENNIAL \O�
oSTREAM F
m
m
x
m
E
m
landworks
Design Group, P.A.
1621 little Avenue, Suite 111
o
jillL Charlotte, NC 28211
104- 8414604 fax: [phone]
r
/
/
/
EXISTING
PERENNIAL
lk
STREAM F
^e PROPOSED HEADWALLS
SEE SHEETS WL -8 & WL -9
FOR CULVERT #2 PROFILE,
ELEVATION, AND DETAIL
NA
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER /
N
0' 30' 60' 120'
SCALE: 1" = 60'
DATE
STREAM IMPACT #2 AT ROAD CROSSING #2 SEPT. 18, 2015
PROJECT
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET #
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -5
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE
1 " =60'

w
m }�
�� � W / �m O
a = O
O r
I
PROPOSED IMPACT TO \ Do
PERENNIAL STREAM B = h
00
20 LF RIP RAP AT
PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER CROSSING
�
. 'ENtRGY tNTITED MT
x I )
P OP. SANITARY SEWER S
SS
NCDOT PERM UTICiTY
} l
BUD HENMEI�SON ROAD
,cvicTINdSR #2131)
0
w
Lul
z N,
o
w c /
w (L
o1
U w'
Ln C7
w _
LLl J Ll
EXISTING PERENNIAL
STREAM B
1
PROPOSEY
RIP RAP OVER SEWER
r
PROb MH
';0
S PROP. MH
' 2 U) -
landworks
Design Group, P.A.
1621 little Avenue, Suite 111
Chadotte, NC 28211
104 - 8414604 fax: [phone]
w ^gyp EXISTING
EXISTING BRIDGE
—
_ (SHADED)
EXISTING
Q Q
RIP RAP APRON
m m
EXISTING
O C
CONCRETE BRIDGE
o- 0-
O 0 co
A BUTTMENTS
r I v�
landworks
Design Group, P.A.
1621 little Avenue, Suite 111
Chadotte, NC 28211
104 - 8414604 fax: [phone]
NOTE: BORING UNDER
STREAM FOR SEWER IS NOT
FEASIBLE, DUE TO LIMITED
DEPTH OF EXISTING
DOWNSTREAM SEWER
MANHOLE WHERE
PROPOSED GRAVITY
SEWER WILL TIE IN
0' 30' 60' 120'
SCALE: 1" = 60'
DATE
STREAM IMPACT #3 AT SEWER CROSSING SEPT. 18, 2015
PROJECT NO
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET#
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -6
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA s-
1"=60'
w ^gyp EXISTING
x�0�
PVMT
--678
_
PROP. 1
Y
PROPOSED 12"
c,0 J_ _
GRAVITY SAN.
—/—to
SEWER
NOTE: BORING UNDER
STREAM FOR SEWER IS NOT
FEASIBLE, DUE TO LIMITED
DEPTH OF EXISTING
DOWNSTREAM SEWER
MANHOLE WHERE
PROPOSED GRAVITY
SEWER WILL TIE IN
0' 30' 60' 120'
SCALE: 1" = 60'
DATE
STREAM IMPACT #3 AT SEWER CROSSING SEPT. 18, 2015
PROJECT NO
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET#
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -6
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA s-
1"=60'

PROPOSED ¢ TOP OF WALL ELEV.
GRADE z w ±704.00
TOP OF WALL ELEV. U !
±704.00 w
7051 705
U ELOPED WINGWALL
HEADWALL D \� 18" PCP � (BEYOND)
700 " \ 700
/ - 2160" RCP
TOP OF BANE BURY 1 PIPE 1' MIN.
695 \ ~ - — - 695
//
L-t55 LF 2)60"R P / EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRAD (ED / OF PIP 1�
- — • " "� "�'' " " "'
690 � � I I I n� \ 690
1' MIN. BURY IN PIPE
PER NCDENR 401
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
30 LF RIP RAP IMPACT 55 LF CULVERT IMPACT 10 LF RIP RAP
(MEASURED AT C /L) (MEASURED AT / IMPACT (MEASURED
C/L AT C /L)
PROFILE - CULVERT CROSSING #1
SCALE H: 1"=40'V: 1 " =10'
6
3
F-
a. - --
i �1
c HEADWALL L
g FOOTING
w
3
RCP TOP OF
HEADWALL
F-
-J r—
J INVERT OF 60" PIPE
12" BELOW FIN. GRADE
L`----- - - - - -- (MIN.)
CULVERT #1 ELEVATION AT HEADWALL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
LLandworks
Design Group, P.A.
1611 little Avenue, Suite 111
Charlotte, NC 26211
104 -641 -1604 fax: [phone]
DATE
CULVERT PROFILES & ELEVATIONS AUG. 28, 2015
PROJECT NO
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET #
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -7
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE
AS SHOWN

PROPOSED
GRADE of TOP OF WALL
TOP OF WALL\ U a �I
710 \ate �I 710
PROPOSED
HEADWALL SLOPED WINGWALL
% (BEYOND)
705 / 705 3) 72" RCP
TOP OF BANK BURY 1 PIPE V MIN.
700 700
I '-1(3) 72" RCP -
_ EXISTING STREAM
695 , /llllll' I 695 C/L GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
AT INTERMITTENT 1' MIN. BURY IN PIPE
STREAM CL PER NCDENR 401
PERMIT REOD.
50 LF RIP RAP IMPACT
(MEASURED AT STREAM C /L)
64 LF CULVERT IMPACT
(MEASURED AT
STREAM C/L /
PROFILE - ROAD CULVERT CROSSING # 2
SCALE H: 1"=40'V: V =10'
HEADWALL
FOOTINC
8 LF RIP RAP
IMPACT (MEASURED
AT STREAM C /L)
TOP OF
HEADWALL
VERT OF 72" PIPE
"BELOW FIN. GRADE
_
L------------- - - - - -J (MIN.)
ROAD CULVERT #2 ELEVATION AT HEADWALL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
Landworks
Design Group, P.A.
1621 little Avenue, Suite 111
Chadotte, NC 28211
104 -841 -1604 fax: [phone]
DATE
CULVERT PROFILES & ELEVATIONS SEPT. 18, 2015
PROJECT NO
INGLESIDE 15015
SHEET#
STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WL -8
TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SLUE
AS SHOWN

CONCRETE
HEADWALL
CONCRETE
WINGWALL
RIP RAP APRON ON
FILTER FABRIC
CONCRETE
FOOTING
}in
> >
W
N
�5
wW
aw
IN PIPE BOTTOM (TYP.)
ENLARGED CULVERT & HEADWALL DETAIL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
Landworks CULVERT & HEADWALL DETAIL
Design Group, P.A. INGLESIDE
1621 little Avenue, SuiteM STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC
Chadatte, NC 28211 TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
104 - 841 -1604 fax: [phone]
STREAM
--VATION
INVERT
DATE
AUG. 28, 2015
PROJECT NO
15015
SHEET #
WL -9
SCALE.
NOT TO SCALE

PROPOSED — —
�I�\ SAND
(� PROO)i�OSED SAN SEWER
/I \ R EX.'ULILERT (NO
11 \ STIR MPAC\T) \
PROPOSED ,c—`
SAND
FILTER #7
PROPOSED SEWER EXTENSION
IMPACT #3 SEE SHEET WL -6
�\EXISTING I/
/ I STREAM D 1 \
—7r PROP PIPE TO \(\ \
/ BYPASS OFF -SITE
RUNOFF AROUND -
�/ BMP BASINS _
/ - -- --._._ \'_- (J -1q0/ J PO�SIBLEFLF E/ROAD /
CROSSING #4 (NO-IMPAL; I W/
/T �07TQMLESS�CGLVERT) /
CHE
3STREAM -C'
OPOSED
PROPOSED SAND FILTERS #6
\ PROPOSED ROAD
I CROSSING IMPACT #2,
( I SEE SHEET WL -5
WATER QUALITY NOTES
\ ( 1. WATER QUALITY BMP'S SHALL BE
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
/ TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE POST
EXISTING CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (HATCHED)
landworks INGLESIDE
Design Group, P.A.
1621 Uttle STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC WATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN
' beooa sdle m
Marione, NC 28226 TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
M -N146M fm21444146D4
CONSTRUCTION CONTROLS
ORDINANCE (PCCO), AND THE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY BMP
DESIGN MANUAL
2. BMP DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
ENGINEERING DEPT
LEGEND,
— EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED SAN SEWER
©PROPOSED
BMP
BASIN Z
0' 200' 400' 800'
i SCALE 1'=400*
SEPT 18,2015
15015
­T*
WQ -1
scar:
1" = 400'

G
O
G
LI S
O
id
h� O
V
C1
s�
D
eter�lra�\�r

n` PERENNIAL
1 \r\ lA, \ rl STREAM F
\ \ \ \1 \k.(. I11� �I`l -150 LF
I x/11111 \
ylJ 11 I((I! LAND
r SCAPE PHOTO
%llji /j f I I. �-►
LOCATION AND
DIRECTION
r11( /(0
}Itl�llh``1! {�Y /iii!
\11h \\
` ��• / /!1 ) ��) 2 r'rllll \� \
jk��Z7ATIONFOR 11 \\ 'hN�
�Kl��� \`
USN
0.05 Aaes 1lll,lr
1� =�, %�
,�P Project 1 t 1 / t ( /li 1111 1(Ir(k / r ► \\ 1\ \ \� \ \\ VO
Bounds ry
h
'OROP�wf
II(6 \\tll 6OUwDi �k ) I (I /) I 1 z
\\\ �� -; � la^ / �8��:, I►� \ \ \I�htt1. �/� IIIt1 1 11111 1 / y l /111/1(1
\ \� \K-
\\ \tom
\ \\ \ h � bMS�E�tVrOT1011y %lI
�I�
\\ \ \1Oy1FI\I
f = �� \ \ \�\ /j i //j UPLAND DATA
FORM (DP2)
.�1 lI111111 {11(11((( l\ \ \� \ \ \.� ^ =��\•l 5 a ��\1 \ \ \l o
1 /l 111► ff \\�` -� ���.\\ �! 1 { \� \`��
WETLAND DATA 1
FORM (DPI) J
11(/ %tom
111t{
t/ (�� �� \�� loo i'
/ /// 1 /I/1(fmlllll l /� y I( ;� — - / i
NNIAL ` ►A % / /Il/11111111\ \� ll� �Illi, fl I .\ \" % r
1 ! WETLAND B/C
STREAM B 1
50 If - // j/1 j 1 }11111 I� \I {I 11 ( ( �\ _ ~ 1 / - 0 07 Acres /1
P9 1 / PClE L(�T/ J/ j (1 JJ/ �J/ ( 1 'r'' \ Culvert 11 l 1
1`Ojt / t / ���,,
MATCHLINE ul'r UN
m Of 250' 500' 1000'
INGLESIDE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg Co., NC JAL /PJK LSR
DELINEATION MAP WITH PHOTOGRAPH DATE:
AND DATA POINT LOCATIONS 05/18/15
FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY Rev: 10/01/15
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION

EXISTING / / , Itr SkE S�T. WL-6 FOR STREAM
—MRS tf iv TIPA// AT PROPOSED
.
pROPOSED)' /�I \EWES ROSSING
�
1 INGLESIDE ( o R�,�
I 1/ 1
FIGURE 1 / Wally / r \ I { Pier 9p CF
� \
/ f G R / 1 I 11 i 11 I I I f o \-�- MATCNLINE
FIGURE 2 , / / / \\ 1
1 111 j \ 1111 1 /a9t
iii %j 1 �' '_= \ \I\ \\ \ \\ \ 1{ ► l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 / }
\10 Project Boundary
\ / 3J6 Adjacent Development Property Line
V 1 ll { 1 \ 111�� and CL of Perrennial Stream
0 FSITE -
\ PERENNIAL {
1 STREAM
�� PxiSTING CARRINGTON
- 1350LF I \II 1 I' /o j \ RIDGE SUBDIVISION
�Ij{I1g11111�� \�I!!
\� \\ 1 111 1 111! �ujbYlcXI TANG PERENNIAL
`�/ 1 / l lI l /1/ cif /f /!1
Il \ \111 ST M
! I (�
l / \ �
11\ \ \ ROPOSED
\ 111111 \111 \\ \ \}11(\ I !SANITARY SEWER
I \ \ \ \ \ \ }11 !) INE (20' MIN. FROM
OP OFBANK)=NO
J (lo" 11j �1111I/j ! 11 I ll 111 111 \\ IMPACT TO STREAM
\ i lI jllll /1 1 I 0111 111\ \ \ OR WETLANDS
;; \1,1(dlll! /11'1!/!1 l 1 I j111111/II{I �t \ ' 1
M P ct T` \\ \..\A\\ (11
v OW �QARM T Iry 1�Ivt vvv111 Y r 1 101111)(11v 1
\ RID M641 \
SS
\ I\ \ i .'\ 1 \\� \Ili \`ii I
\ ��l I 111 \ i\ 1 111 \11\11 111 \�l \11111\ 1 / I1
E t 111 {111
EXI$TIN Std I/ 1 111111 I I{ 1 l l l }
EXIST:
/ EN I f 9*115TANG SEWER
/. /CllrJI/ /!/ r ,;i1)l; / r�1 I�(M LE
LANDSCAPE PHOTO
O~ LOCATION AND Culvert 0' 100' 200' aoo'
DIRECTION
SCALE: 1'= 200'
FIGURE NO. INGLESIDE Drawn By: Reviewed By:
8 A /C n f% Mecklenburg Co., NC JAL /PJK LSR
DELINEATION MAP WITH PHOTOGRAPH DATE:
AND DATA POINT LOCATIONS 05/18/15
FOR SURVEYAND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY Rev: 10/01/15
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION /

By:

F low Path: Jurisdictional features on the site
low into an unnamed tributary to
McDowell Creek, which flows to McDowell
Creek, which flows to the Catawba River
(TNW) at Mountain Island Lake.
AB
INGLESIDE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
NAVIGATIONAL PATHWAY MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDENR Verification
Flow Path
OProject Location
1 ,
'09
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
PJ K I LSR
DATE:
09/30/2015

Photo Location 1: Wetland B /C.
Photo Location 2: Wetland D/E and Perennial Stream F.
Ingleside: Representative Landscape Photographs
Mecklenburg County, NC. (Photos taken May 15, 2015)
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC.

�-r r
Cie-
��QS/15/15
-' r

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
DP3: Perennial Stream F
Date: 05/15/15 1 Evaluator: I PJK JAL I Eastin : 11 0.9135 W
Pro ect: I DP3: Perennial Stream F Northing: 35AO45 N
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30* 33.5
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
A.
Gegmorphology
Absent_
Weak
Moderate Strong
SCORE
1a.
Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2.
Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3
3.
In- channel structure: riffle-/ step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4.
Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5.
Active /relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6.
Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7.
Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8.
Headcuts
0
1
2
3
1
9.
Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
10.
Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
11.
Second or qreater order channel
No =
0
Yes = 3
Geomorpholo��v Subtotal
6m"
a Man -made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B.
Hvdrologv
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13.
Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
.5
16.
Orqanic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17.
Soil -based Evidence of hiqh water table?
No =
0
Yes = 3
Hydrologv Subtotal
6min
C.
Biology
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20.
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
1
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23.
CravfiSh
0
0.5
1
1.5
.5
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0.75,
OBL=
1.5 Other= 0
�iology Subtotal
1.5
perennial treams may also be identified using other methods.
See
page 35
of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Sand with some cobble. 6 to 10' TOB /3 -
6' channel
Area has been previously restored /enhanced
for a mitigation bank.
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
ri t

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Ingleside City /County: Mecklenburg County Sampling Date: 05/15115
Applicant/Owner: Standard Pacific of the Carolinas, LLC State NC Sampling Point: DP2:UPL
Investigator(s): JAL. PJK. LSR Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %)• 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lai: N 35.4045 Long: W 80.9135 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name- CeD2: Cecil Sandy Clay Loam 2 - 8% slopes, moderately eroded. NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Y No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation N Soil Y or Hydrology fit significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks: For the week of 05/10/15 through 05/16/15:
Ava /Max/Min Temp F): 71/89/55, PreciD Total ( a 0.00, Previous 48hrs Precin (in. '0 00
"Area is heavily disturbed by active livestock crossing.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reowred: check all that aDDly)
Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (65)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches)- Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size- 30' ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Fraxinus Dennsvlvanica 10 _Y FACW
2. Populus deltoios -s 10 Y FAC
3. Junlperus ylrglnlana In _y FACU
4.
5.
6.
Saplino Stratum (Plot size•
1.Juniperus virqiniana
2. DiosDvros virainiana
3.
4.
5.
6
Shrub Stratum (Plot size.
1 Elaeaanus umbellata
2 Liauidambar stvraciflua
3.
4.
5.
6.
Herb Stratum (Plot size-
1. Elaeaanus umbellata
2. Microsteaium vimineum
3. Rubus arautus
4.
5
6
7
8.
9.
10.
11
30 = Total Cover
50% of total cover- 15 20% of total cover: 6
30' )
10 Y FACU
10 Y FAC
20 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 10 20% of total cover: 4
30' )
15 Y NI
10 Y_ FAC
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5
30' )
15 Y NI
10 Y FAC
5 Y FACU
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1 Lonicera iaponica 10 Y FAC
2 Toxicodendron radicans 5 Y FAC
3
4.
5
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point:DP2:UPL
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 12 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 58.3% (A /B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply bv.
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals-
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_2L 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:DP2: UPL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0-4 7.5YR 4/4 100 Silty Clay Loam
4-20 7.5 YR 4/6 100 Silty Clay Loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location. PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Remarks-
No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Inqleside City /County Mecklenburq County Sampling Date: 05/15/15
Applicant /Owner: Standard Pacific of the Carolinas, LLC State, NC Sampling Point: DP1:Wtld BC
Investigator(s): JAL. PJK. LSR Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 0 —2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lai: __N _3,5_4D45 Long: W80.91 5 Datum. WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: CeD2: Cecil Sandy Clay Loam. 2 - 8% slo1L moderately eroded. NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Y No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation N , Soil Y or Hydrology Y significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes _X No
Yes X No
Remarks. For the week of 05/10/15 through 05116/15.
Ava /Max/Min Temo(F)- 71/89/55, PreciD Total (jol: 0.00, Previous 48hrs Precio (ja L0.00
*Area is heavily disturbed by active livestock crossing.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reaured, check all that aoDly)
_ Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
X Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
Water - Stained Leaves (69)
Aquatic Fauna (B33)
'Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes N
Water Table•Present? Yes N
_ True Aquatic Plants (814)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
• X Depth (inches):
• X Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
X Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches). 0 - 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size- 30' ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Fraxinus Dennsvlvanica 15 Y FACW
2. U uodambar styracoflu a is y FAC
3. Ulmus alata 15 _y FACU
4.
5.
6.
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size
1. Corpus amomum
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1. Saururus cernuus
2. Lvcoous virainicus
3.
4
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
45 = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 22.5 20% of total cover: 9
30' t
10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
30' 1
10 Y FACW
_10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
30' )
15 Y OBL
15 Y OBL
30 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 15 20% of total cover: 6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4
5
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Sampling Point:DP1:Wtld BC
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata, 5
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83.3%
(A /B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is _0.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in (7.6 cm) DBH
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:DP1: Wtld BC
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0-3 7.5YR 4/4 100 Silty Clay Loam
3-16 7.5 YR 5/2 90 7.5YR 5/8 10 C pL Sandy Clay Loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
ZLocation• PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147,
148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbrlc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks-
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

UNGLESUDE
APPROXIMATE WETLAND AND STREAM DIMENSIONS
WETLANDS Sq-a Acres STREAMS LE Acres
NOTES
Wetland B/C 0.07 Poenmo| Stream B 50 0.01
Table 1: VVOUQ
Wetland [VE UO5 Ponmn/o| EKmom F 15U 002
^ � Summary Table
Total Wetlands U 0L13 Total Streams 200 0\03
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE 129.4
TOTAL WATERS OF THE USACREAGE 0.15
TOTAL UPLAND ACRES 129.25
\1
�
~,
. �
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard'S. Rindiner, PLLC.—

�I
w
K
m
c�
a
90
m
o °-
aa
cD
I
cu
a
V)
n
FD'
N
Threatened & Endangered Species Report

THREATENED & ENDANGERED / PROTECTED SPECIES
EVALUATION
BARNETT PROPERTY
Mecklenburg County, NC
January 5, 2015
Updated April 23, 2015
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
10612 -D Providence Road
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
(704) 904 —2277
www.wetlands - epg.com

WEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC.
THREATENED 8t ENDANGERED /PROTECTED SPECIES EVALUATION
BARNETT PROPERTY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The Barnett property is approximately 130 acres, located just north of Bud Henderson
Road and east of Beatties Ford Road, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The site
can be found on the Lake Norman South USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map; latitude
is 35.4046 °N, longitude is 80.9182 °W. The topography consists of mostly flat upland
and gentle slopes grading into stream corridors with the elevation ranging from 680 to
750 ft. (Figure 1).
BARN PROPERTY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC
J l r ii i I -
f1 I \e -
'Y - �`� , J, Ri~S.,'°f ••h� 1 U37��1 L1 \% e;1WIl
`I
r ' FF II
j�_. y.� SITE •" r •'
At
r y '•'�L t ?;•� 1
r
ffUAD NAME'. .• \ t =M?4 '
Li 9A1 SC X13 SCALE
13,000 °.
ndt,l 11la; MfgtoSA Inf, .
FIGURE NO, BARNETT PROPERTY
"] MemenbJrg County, NC
1
USGS MAP- WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXIST ING CONDITIONS STUDY
. t • SUBJECT TO USACEINCDENR VERIFICATION
Urawn By I Reviewed By
91' I %�
DATE'
12/12/2014
Charlotte Office vy,~vvetIands- epg.com Asheville Office:
1061 2 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10. PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
Ien.rindnergwetlands- epg.com amanda.jones )wetlands- epg.com

YYEPC7 rJL _ -.. - .. 2
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website http: / /www.fws.aov /endangered/ was
referenced on April 11, 2015 to determine the occurrence of Threatened and
Endangered 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 January 2, 2015.
Three plant species with federal protection were included in the survey efforts:
• Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzh), 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 michauxit), listed as Federally Endangered, requires
habitat of sandy forests and woodland edges. This species requires periodic fire
as a part of its ecology.
A total of three animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring
in Mecklenburg County:
• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large bodies of open
water such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers, where there are suitable
fish populations and tall trees for nesting and roosting.
• Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally Endangered, is
restricted to cool, clean, well -oxygenated water. Stable, silt- free stream beds
are required for this species. Typically stable areas occur where the stream
banks are well- vegetated with trees and shrubs.
Northern Long -eared Bat (Myotis 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.
Charlotte Office:
www.wetiands- epg.com Asheville Office,
10612 -D Providence Rd.
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550
Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277
Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277
(828) 708 -7059
len.rindner @wetlands - epg.com
amanda.iones @wetlands - epg.com

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Table 1: Threatened I Endangered / Protected Species listed for Mecklenburg
County
Countv: Mecklenbura. NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
* *Database search performed on April 11, 2015
Group Name Status Lead Office
Clams
Carolina heelsDlitter
Endangered
Asheville Ecological
(Lasmigona decoratal
Services Field Office
Flowering
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea
Endangered
Raleigh Ecological
Plants
laeyi ata )
Services Field Office
Flowering
5ghweinitz's sunflower
Endangered
Asheville Ecological
Plants
(Helianthds schweiridzi►)
Services Field'Office
Flowering
Michaux's sumac (Rhus
Endangered
Raleigh Ecological
Plants
michauxii)
Services Field Office
Mammals
Northern Lona- Eared Bat
Threatened
Twin Cities Ecological
(Myotis sevtentrionalis)
Services Field Office
RESULTS:
Habitat Descriptions
(Species lists reflect the seasonality of the survey)
The site is characterized by expansive pastureland and hayfields on the flats and slopes,
young and medium aged pine plantations on the western slopes, and scattered,
disturbed mixed pine /hardwood stands. There are cattle being pastured on the site with
a barn and outbuildings, and numerous fencerows. The streams on site have been
recently restored (in part) with planted trees and wetland plants.
The assemblage of plants growing in the transitional edges of the open fields and
disturbed roadside includes Fescue (Festuca sp.), Johnson Grass (Sorghum
halepense), Brazilian Verbena (Verbena brasiliensis), Panic Grass (Panicum sp.),
Sericea Lespedeza ( Lespedeza cuneata), Love Grass (Eragrostis sp.), Ragweed
Charlotte Office• www.wetlands -e
pg.COm Asheville Office.
10612 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte. NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
len.rindnergwetlands- epg.com amanda tones @wetlands- epg.com

WEE5 4
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), Goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
Blackberry (Rubus sp.), Winged Sumac (Rhus copallina), Japanese Honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), Groundsel (Senicio sp.), Bull
Thistle (Carduus pumilus), Rabbit Tobacco (Gnapthalium obtusifolium), St. John's Wort
(Hypericum punctatum), Venus' Looking Glass (Specularia pen°oliata), Poke Weed
(Phytolacca americana), Gamma Grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), and Purple Top
(Tridens flavus).
The disturbed mixed pine /hardwood stands are comprised of Short-leaf Pine (Pinus
echinata), White Oak (Quercus alba), Willow Oak (Q. Phellos), Sweet Gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and
Blackgum (Nyssa sy/vatica). These areas have been utilized as cattle pasture.
The western slopes are covered with Loblolly Pine plantations (Pinus taeda).
Endanaered /Protected Saecies Results
• Although potential habitat exists for Schweinitz's Sunflower, Michaux's Sumac
and Smooth Coneflower along the roadside corridor, field, and woods edges,
examination of these areas revealed no occurrences on -site.
• No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles, and there were no sightings nor
were any nesting sites observed.
• The on -site streams are either degraded or do not appear to have the habitat
characteristics required to support populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Based
on existing documentation, Carolina Heelsplitter populations have not been
previously identified within this basin. No individuals were observed during the
survey nor would any be expected on -site.
• According to information supplied by USFWS, potential late spring /summer
habitat exists for the Northern Long- Eared Bat (NLEB) within limited forested
areas and along wooded edges on site. Most of the property is currently
pasture /open agricultural lands. However, this site may be subject to section 7
and /or section 9 of the ESA which may affect tree clearing activities from May 15
through August 15.
- -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- -- - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - --
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands- epg.com Asheville Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
len.rindner @wetlands- epg.com amanda.jones @wetlands- epg.com

5
YVEN - - ' Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, P
g p LLC.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend further consultation with you and your project planners and engineers
regarding coordination with USFWS and other federal and state agencies.
Respectfully submitted,
#' *"/
Lisa R. Gaffney, Biologist
April 23, 2015
Charlotte Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte. NC 28277
(704) 904 -2277
len.nndner @wetlands - epg.com
www.wetlands - epg.com
Asheville Office
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805
(828) 708 -7059
amanda.iones @wetlands - epg.com

YYEPC3 6
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rmdner, PLLC.
Curriculum Vitae for:
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist / Botanist
B.S. Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Ms. Gaffney is a classically trained Botanist and has conducted field work and
investigative studies covering thousands of cumulative acres in both North and
South Carolina since 1996, including:
• Cabarrus County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 1997 -1998. Organized,
directed, and worked in field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County
for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, collecting field data and
writing reports.
• Lincoln County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 2000 -2001. Organized,
directed, and worked in field survey of natural areas in Lincoln County for
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, collecting field data and
writing reports.
• Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys and Natural Communities
Evaluation for over 20,000 acres in North and South Carolina, 1996 -
present.
• Located and identified at least six previously unreported populations of
Federally Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
• Located and identified four previously unreported populations of
Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf.
• Located a previously unknown population of Federally Endangered
Schweinitz's Sunflower at Redlair Farm in Gaston County, NC. This
discovery led (in part) to the purchase of the site by the State of North
Carolina Plant Conservation Program, now called Redlair Preserve. This
population has become a Recovery Site for the species.
• Participated in numerous Piedmont Prairie restoration projects in
Mecklenburg, Union, Cabarrus and Gaston Counties, North Carolina.
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands- epg.com Asheville Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
len.rindner @wetlands- epg.com amanda Jones @wetlands - epg.com

WEPC;
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner. PLLC.
Figure 2: USGS MAP
BARNETT PROPERTY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC
j,
a �! Hieks Caadmq"
•!f +, 1 a 1
1 t . f,ft�
AN
M6 _ 0 1
�_�_ ��•.... y -`., .. win /¢ •'�. , (:
(//
4 QUAD NAME: r - .' _ _ :• � '
LOCATON: Laka Norman _ _"� •x ' ,
Lat:96.1042 South, NC
Long: 4109172 -' • ;
HUC: 09060101
Upper Catawba 129.416
SCALE u •" ��_ - l �.
121,000 • �,
r, ' Ci4wefiaRl(L14�D7�cNhb� Ino_ - 1
BARNM PROPERTY Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg County, NC LRG LSR
USGS MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION
DATE:
12/18/2014
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands- epg.com Asheville Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd.. Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville. NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
Ien.rindner(a )wetlands- epg.com amanda.iones@ wetlands- epg.com

WEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Figure 3: AERIAL MAP
8
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
BARNE17 PROPERTY
Mecklenburg, NC
AERIAL MAY- WATERS OF THE U.S.
EXISTING CON D bf IONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USA CFjIYCDMRVFRIFlCATYOJY
Drawn By: I Reviewed By:
fr;I:f:1• bRRRRRI��j:l
DATE:
12/S/M
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands- epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-0 Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
len.rindner(Dwet lands- epg.com amanda.jonesQa wetlands - epg.com

YYEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Figure 4: USDA SOIL MAP
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDFNR VFRIRCATION
Vol
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Reviewed By:
13::
'5/14
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands- epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-1) Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
len.rindner @wetlands- epg.com amanda.iones @wetlands - epg.com

)LEEG 10
Wetlands and Environmental'Pjanning�Group' �- - - - Leonard S. Rmd
ner, PLLC.
Figure 5: USDA SOIL MAP LEGEND
Map Unit Legend
° °Mecklenburg County; NoiUi Cerolliia (NC119)
`MajaUnit Symbol° ° Mm AY �eFeen o A0eA
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
1607
42.9%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CeD2
Cecil sandy clay loam, B to 15
85.5
22.8%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent
33.7
9.0%
slopes
EnD
Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15
16.7
4.5%
percent slopes
MeB
Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2
6 -4
1.7%
to 8 percent slopes
MO
Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent
47.71
12.7%
slopes, frequently flooded
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25
16.6
4.4%
percent slopes
VaD
Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15
0.9
02%
percent slopes
W
Water
261
0.7%
WkD
Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent
3.91
1.0%
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
374.61
100.0%
FIGURE NO.
BARNETT PROPERTY
Mecklenburg, NC
SOILS MAP 2 -WATERS OF THE U.S.'
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDENR VERIFICATION
Drawn By: I Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE:
12/5/14
Charlotte Office: - - - --' - - www.wetlands -e PS. com - -- - - - - - - Asheville
Office:
10612 -D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
(704) 904 -2277 (828) 708 -7059
len.rindner @wetlands - epg.com amanda jones @wetlands - epg.com

x ?,eso%jfces
t
0
A
0

R.S. Webb & Associates
Cultural Resource Management Consultants
2800 Holly Springs Parkway, Suite 200 • P.O. Drawer 1319
Holly Springs, Georgia 30142
Phone: 770 - 345 -0706 • Fax: [phone]
January 26, 2015
Mr. Len Rindner
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
Subject: Findings - Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey
Barnett Development Tract
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
R.S. Webb & Associates No. 14- 649 -032
Dear Mr. Rindner:
BACKGROUND
During the period of January 13 through 16, 2015, R.S. Webb & Associates conducted a cultural
resources literature review and field reconnaissance survey of the 129 -acre Barnett development tract
in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1). For this study a "cultural resource" is defined
as a discrete area of human activity that is more than 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 reconnaissance survey was
to determine if previously recorded cultural resources are located within the project area and to
estimate the likelihood of unrecorded significant cultural resources [i.e., eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP)] being present within the study tract. A secondary goal was to
generally assess land use history and potential post - depositional effects on cultural resources.
METHODOLOGY
Literature and Records Search: Archival sources and background data on the project area were
gathered from the following repositories:
• North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Raleigh, North Carolina
• North Carolina Office of State Archeology (OSA), Raleigh, North Carolina
• State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina
• The North Carolina Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service ( HPOWEB, found
at http: / /gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb /)
• North Carolina Maps Project, found at http : / /www2.lib.unc.edu/dc /ncmaps/
Records at the OSA, including the official files and maps, were examined, followed by a review of
the pertinent site forms, and manuscript/report files. At the SHPO, pertinent compliance document
files, official maps, NRHP /pending files, and Mecklenburg County historic structures survey files
were reviewed. The HPOWEB GIS database was also used to confirm the presence or absence of

Findings - Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey, Barrett Development Tract Page 2
January 26, 2015
state - recognized historic resources in Mecklenburg County. At the State Archives, historic maps and
aerial photographs were examined for features including trails, roads, structures, and cemeteries.
Historic county maps were also viewed through North Carolina Maps, a collaboration of the
University of North Carolina, the State Archives of North Carolina, and the Outer Banks History
Center.
The following sources were examined to search for historic resources within and adjacent to the
project area:
• 1910 USDA Mecklenburg County Soil Map
• 1911 Post Office Department Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1938 State Highway and Public Works Commission Maps of Mecklenburg County
• 1938, 1951, and 1968 Aerial Photographs of Mecklenburg County
Reconnaissance Field Survey: The field reconnaissance was designed to sample areas likely to
contain prehistoric and/or historic resources. The Project Archeologist walked transects across the
project area landforms shown in Figure 2. Exposed areas, such as road cuts, trails, tree falls, and
eroding banks, were examined for artifacts. To monitor subsurface conditions, screened shovel tests
were excavated at 30 -meter (m) intervals along most reconnaissance transects. Occasionally, shovel
test intervals along the sloping edges of ridge lines were expanded to 60 m. Shovel testing involves
the excavation of 30-by-30-centimeter (cm) pits and screening the soils through 0.64 -cm hardware
cloth to enhance the recovery of artifacts. Cultural resources were recorded and photographed, and
their locations plotted on the project map.
RESULTS
Literature and Records Search
Previous Archeological Investigations: According to maps on file at the OSA, there have been no
cultural resources management projects performed within 1.6 kilometers (km) (1.0 mile) of the
project area.
Previous Architecturallnvestigations: According to SHPO personnel, the North Carolina HPOWEB
database is the definitive source of architectural survey information for Mecklenburg County.
National Register of Historic Places: A review of National Register files and maps indicates that
there are no NRHP- listed properties within 1.6 km of the project area (Figure 1).
Previously Recorded Archeological Sites: According to OSA records there are no previously
recorded archeological sites located within 1.6 km of the project area.
Mecklenburg County Historic Structures Survey: According to the North Carolina HPOWEB
database, there are three recorded historic structures located within 600 m of the project area. They
include Resource MK -1454 (Carl Beard House) located approximately 580 m north, Resource MK-
1464 (Davidson McDonald House) located about 600 m southwest, and Resource MK -1471
(Sunnyside or Ingleside Plantation) located in a project area out - parcel on the north side of Bud
Henderson Road (Figure 1). The last named historic resource (only the plantation house itself) was

Findings - Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey, Barrett Development Tract Page 3
January 26, 2015
designated a county landmark property by the Charlotte - Mecklenburg Historic Properties
Commission in 1977.
Revolutionary War Actions /Features: Following the Battle of Charlotte (September 26, 1780) and
a brief occupation of the town, the British abandoned hope of gaining support among the citizens of
central and western North Carolina. In the wake of their surprising defeat at the Battle of Cowpens
(January 17, 1781), the British turned their attention to the destruction of the American Continental
Army, which was moving eastward to rendezvous and resupply at Salisbury. A group of North
Carolina militia were posted to guard roads leading from the ferries and fords of the Catawba River
and to delay the British pursuit. On February 1, 1781, the British attempted to cross a portion of
their army at Cowan's Ford, about three miles northwest of the project area. A brief battle ensued
which resulted in the death of militia General William Lee Davidson. The battle had little effect on
British momentum, but their pursuit of the American army concluded at the Battle of Guilford
Courthouse (Greensboro, North Carolina) on March 15, 1781 (Cross 2006).
Civil War Actions /Features: Review of the Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al.
1983) shows that the Union army passed through Lancaster County, South Carolina in the fall of
1864 and turned eastward to Waynesboro, thus bypassing the Mecklenburg County area. While there
were no nearby Civil War - related military skirmishes or engagements, raiding and foraging could
certainly have taken place all across the project region.
Historic Cemeteries: No recorded historic cemeteries are located within or abutting the project area,
and none appear on historic maps and aerial photographs.
Structures on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs: The 1910 USDA Soil Map and the 1911
County Commissioner's maps of Mecklenburg County show no structures located in the project
area. The course of the current Bud Henderson Road appears relatively unchanged from that
depicted on these early 201h century maps. A minor, north - south - trending road appears immediately
east of the project area, but its course is no longer present or in use (Figure 1). Structures appear on
the north side of Bud Henderson Road, in the project area out - parcel, at or near the southeast project
corner, and west of the intersection with the minor road (Figure 1). The 1938 Mecklenburg County
highway map shows a group of four structures located at or near the project area out - parcel and a
structure at or near the southeast project corner. Neither the minor road nor the structure located at
its intersection with Bud Henderson Road appear on the 1938 map.
Aerial photographs taken in 1938 show that, generally, the north half of the project tract was wooded
and the south half was under cultivation. The current northeast project boundary line is clearly
discernible on the 1938 aerial photograph. The course of Bud Henderson Road and the distribution
of structures are similar to the early 201h century maps. The exceptions are three structures that
appear, aligned north -south along the east side of the creek, in the project area (Figure 1). A tertiary
road leading north from Bud Henderson Road, along the west side of the out - parcel, linked these
structures (Figure 1). The structures located in the project area, and the road associated with them,
are not detectable on the 1951 aerial photographs, but they were located in a heavily wooded section
of the project area. The structure located at or near the southeast project corner does not appear on
the 1951 aerial photographs. The current northeast project boundary line was still clearly visible in

Findings - Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey, Barrett Development Tract Page 4
January 26, 2015
1951 and in 1968, and land use practices appear to have been relatively unchanged from the earlier
aerial photos. Two of the three structures in the project area were distinguishable in 1968.
Field Reconnaissance
Land Use: Figure 2 shows that the project area consists primarily of moderate to steep side slopes,
ridge ends and ridge spurs approaching tributaries to McDowell Creek from the east, west and north.
Where not deeply incised, floodplains tend to be poorly drained or subject to flooding. Field
observations indicate that the project area has been subjected to very harsh land use practices related
to initial clearing/logging, exhaustive farming, severe erosion, and especially contour terracing. The
project area is a mix of pastured fields and clearcut areas. Shovel test data from the current
reconnaissance survey confirm eroded to highly eroded A- horizon sandy loam, to silt loam, to clay
loam over compact clay subsoil across the project area. A- horizon deposits measured 30 cm in depth
at one location; over 90 percent of the deposits were 10 cm or less in thickness.
Archeological Resources: Shovel tests were conducted along 23 transects, traversing landforms with
a high probability for containing archeological sites (Figure 2). As a result, one prehistoric
archeological site was recorded. The low site density is probably due to the highly eroded nature of
the project area (i.e., overall lack of original A- horizon soils), subsequent early to middle 201h century
soil conservation efforts (i.e., terracing), and the moderate to steep slope across much of the project
area.
Archeological Site 1: This site is a prehistoric lithic scatter located on a west - facing ridge end in the
north central portion of the project area.; a tributary to McDowell Creek is about 110 m to the west
(Figure 2). Shovel tests at the site revealed 10 to 20 cm of grayish -brown loamy sand, over 10 cm
of mottled brownish -red to yellowish -red clay loam, over yellowish -red clay. Three quartz artifacts
were recovered from two positive shovel tests. These included one thinning flake and two flake
fragments. The artifacts suggest only that lithic reduction activities took place at this location
during an unknown period in prehistory. This site appears to be confined to the plowzone and has
been severely scattered and disturbed by 19`h and early to middle 20`h century land use practices. On
this basis, Site 1 is probably ineligible for the NRHP.
Historic Resources: No historic architecture or other historic features were recorded within the
project area. As noted above, Sunnyside or Ingleside Plantation (Resource MK -1471) is located in
a project out - parcel on the north side of Bud Henderson Road (Figures 1, 2, and 3). Reportedly
constructed shortly after the Civil War (circa 1867 to 1873), Ingleside appears to be a good example
of Italianate style and is likely eligible for the NRHP under eligibility Criteria A (broad pattern in
history), B (association with a prominent individual), and C (architecture). This house and
surrounding yards /grounds are considered an "historic landmark" by Charlotte - Mecklenburg County.
It appears that there is adequate mature vegetation within the Ingleside tract to buffer view of the
proposed development. However, is recommended that a vegetative buffer be maintained along the
common boundary between Ingleside and the project area.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Research revealed that no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the project area.
The current reconnaissance field survey identified one severely disturbed prehistoric lithic scatter
that does not meet NRHP eligibility criteria.

Findings - Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey, Barrett Development Tract Page 5
January 26, 2015
Ingleside Plantation, a local Historic Landmark, abuts the project area boundary on the north side
of Bud Henderson Road. A vegetative buffer between this property and the project area is
recommended to buffer the view of the project area from Ingleside.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Rindner, 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
16ai it.,(
Robert S. (Steve) Webb
President and Senior Principal Archeologist
Attachments: Figures 1 -3
REFERENCES
Cross, J.L.
2006 "Battle of Cowan's Ford ". NCPedia. Internet- Online. Fount at: http: / /ncpedia.org/
cowans- ford - battle. Accessed 8 Sept 2014.
Davis, G.B., L.J. Perry and J.W. Kirkley, compiled by C.D. Cowles
1983 Atlas toAccompanythe OfficialRecords ofthe Union and Confederate Armies. Reprint
of the 1891 -1895 edition. The Fairfax Press, NY.

r
1rj �
r
1 1�
ij
"• Road on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
❑ Structure on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Map Reference: 7.5- Minute USGS Quadrangle
Lake Norman South (1993), NC
r
1
I
(V
,l
■ Recorded Historic Resource
Recorded Archeological Site
Scale
0 610 meters
0 2000 feet
Figure 1 Project Area and PreviouSly Recorded Cultural Resources Location Map

NN 4V
..Archeologicalti 19-
Site `l� —�
y r ,
Project Area
�5
12 10
4
- Ingleside
MK1471•
Map Reference: 7.5- Minute USGS Quadrangle Scale
Lake Norman South (1993), NC 0 104 meters
0 340 feet
Figure 2 Survey Coverage and Cultural Resources Location Map

1 MA
jr
P'r
sx
[! { m 'Avg,'
J
R
an
:"