20190216 Ver 1_401 Application_20190214

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
February 12, 2019
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Satellite Office
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 29
Sharon Towers
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
Dear Mr. Shaeffer,
On behalf of our client, Presbyterian Home at Charlotte, Inc, please find enclosed a Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) application for the Sharon Towers project, pursuant to a
Nationwide Permit No. 29. The Sharon Towers property (Mecklenburg County Tax Parcel No.
17903202, 17903201, 17903248, 17903247, 17903245, 17905109, 17905107) is approximately
26.1 -acres. The street address for the property is 5100 Sharon Rd, Charlotte, NC 28210. The
projectp ose is to expand the existing Sharon Towers retirement home. The Presbyterian
Home charlotte, Inc. has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide
Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. An executed Agent Authorization Form is
included. CWS is submitting a check for $570.00 to cover the cost of the application fee for the
NCDEQ — DWR PCN submittal.
Please do not hesitate to contact Sean Martin at 828-719-1320 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding this project.
Sincerely,
06_�A
Sean Martin
Senior Scientist
Cc:
Jeremy Icard — LandDesign, Inc
Anne Moffat — Presbyterian Home of Charlotte, Inc.
Mr. Alan Johnson - N.C. Division of Water Resources, Mooresville Regional Office
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 2

Sharon Towers
Nationwide Permit No. 29
Attachments
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
A: Figures 1-7
B: NCSAM Form
C: NC SHPO Correspondence
D: Protected, Endangered, and Threatened Species Report
E: Stream and Wetland Dataforms
F: Construction Plans/Impact Figure
G: NCDMS In -lieu Fee Mitigation Approval Letter
H: Photo Page
Page 2 of 2

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
® Section 404 Permit D Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number: NWP 29
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes Q No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular 0 Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
0'401 Water Quality Certification — Express 0 Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
Yes O No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
q Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
® Yes ❑ No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
p Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
q Yes ®, No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Sharon Towers
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
The Presbyterian Home at Charlotte, Inc. C/O: Ms. Anne Moffat, President & CEO
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
29398-879
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Ms. Anne Moffat, President & CEO
3d. Street address:
5100 Sharon Rd
3e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28210
3f. Telephone no.:
704-553-3709
3g. Fax no.:
N/A
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
b Agent 0 Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Mr. Sean Martin
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c. Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.:
828-719-1320
5f. Fax no.:
704-527-1133
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
17903202, 17903201, 17903248, 17903247, 17903245,
17905109,17905107
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.144552° Longitude: -80.834297°
1 c. Property size:
26.1 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
UT — Little Sugar Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c. River basin:
Lower Catawba River 03050103 (HUC)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area consists of single-family residential development with undeveloped forested and maintained herbaceous
areas. On-site elevations range from 680-700 feet above mean sea level (Figures 1-7). Land cover within the project area
consists of deciduous forest, herbaceous areas, and medium intensity multi -family residential development and related
infrastructure.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.006 -acre
c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
203 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to construct an expansion of the existing retirement home on the property.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte will be expanding its current footprint by constructing several new residential
structures and an underground parking garage and storm water treatment system within Mecklenburg County tax parcels
17903202, 17903201, 17903248, 17903247, 17903245, 17905109, 17905107. This project will provide for needed new
residential space within a quickly growing, urban section of Charlotte and provide a recreational outlet for the current
Sharon Towers residents.
Site preparation for the new structures will involve engineered fill within Stream A and Wetland AA (Figure 7; Attachment
H, Photographs 1-2). Total permanent impacts to Stream A will be 178 linear feet and permanent impacts to Wetland AA
will total 0.006 ac (Attachment F -Impact Figure). Plans for the proposed expansion of the Presbyterian Home are shown
in Attachment F. Impacts to Stream A (S1) and Wetland AA (W1) will result from fill due to the construction of structures
associated with the Sharon Towers expansion, an emergency access road, and a below grade parking garage and the
widening and relocation of the on-site access road. The on-site access road will be rerouted and widened to support
improvements to the Sharon Road and Sharon View Road intersection as required by the City of Charlotte.
Off-site storm water flow supporting the hydrology of Stream A and Wetland AA will be routed away from the original
channel by a series of new permanent pipes that will be directed to a below grade BMP composed of sand filter, sediment,
and detention chambers. This BMP will remove sediment and excessive nutrients before the water is piped off-site to
existing storm water infrastructure (Attachment F).
The lower, approximately 25 linear foot, section of Stream A will be left undisturbed. An underground storm water detention
structure with a slow release rate pipe, connected to roof leaders of adjacent buildings, will provide hydrology to the
undisturbed section of Stream A, thereby supporting continued function of the stream. No loss of channel or hydrology
will occur in the lower 25 feet of Stream A.
Typical heavy equipment will be used in the grading operations (bulldozers, excavators, dump trucks, graders, etc).
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
® Yes 0 No 0 Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
—
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: The site was field verified by David Shaeffer of
the USACE on December 7, 2018. Action ID: SAW -2018-
02163
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
0 Preliminary (�: Final
of determination was made?
-
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Carolina Wetland Services
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
The site was field verified by David Shaeffer of the USACE on December 7, 2018. Action ID: SAW -2018-02163.
5.
Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
p Yes ® No C7 Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
Yes d No
6b.
If yes, explain.
This project is an expansion of the existing Presbyterian Home of Charlotte, and no previous permits or known impacts
to Waters of the US exist.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams —tributaries 0 Buffers 0 Open Waters g Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f. Area
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1
P
Fill
Headwater Water Wetland
Yes
404
0.006
W2
W3
W4
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.006
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
Fill
Stream A
Int
404
3
178
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
178
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
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 indivii ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Tempora (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
-
Choose One
Choose
O2
-
Choose One
Choose
03
-
Choose One
Choose
04
-
Choose One
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
N/A
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b. 5c. 5d.
Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet)
purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
5e.
Upland
(acres)
P1
Choose One
P2
Choose One
5f. Total:
N/A
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number-
Permanent (P) or
Tempora T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
-
Yes/No
B2
-
Yes/No
B3
-
Yes/No
B4
-
Yes/No
B5
-
Yes/No
B6
-
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
'No build' alternative: The purpose of the project is to construct an expansion of the existing retirement home on the
property and will provide for needed new residential space within a quickly growing, urban section of Charlotte and provide
a recreational outlet for the current Sharon Towers residents. A 'no build' alternative would not meet project goals,
therefore, this alternative is not practical.
Preferred Alternative: To avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the Sharon Towers site was
delineated, and a field USACE verification of on-site features was obtained on December 7, 2018. Impacts to Waters of
the U.S. are unavoidable due to several site constraints. The below grade parking garage is a requirement of the City of
Charlotte and its location is dictated by the lack of above ground area available for the amount of parking required, location
of planned underground storm water and utility infrastructure, and the widening and relocation of the on-site access road
that provides ingress/egress to the Sharon Road and Sharon View Road intersection. Additionally, grading for the widening
and relocation of the on-site access road will cause unavoidable impacts to Wetland AA. The City of Charlotte is requiring
improvements to this intersection in anticipation of additional traffic resulting from the expansion of Sharon Towers. The
crosswalk distance will be shortened, improving pedestrian safety (Attachment F-Impact Figure). Fill of Stream A will also
support a required 20-foot wide emergency vehicle access road. Placement of this road is dictated by available access to
Sharon Road and convenient access to all facilities of the Sharon Towers site while avoiding potentially heavily trafficked
primary access roads. To minimize impacts to Stream A while still achieving project aims, the lower, approximately 25
linear foot, section of Stream A will be left undisturbed.
Water Quality Enhancement: Off-site storm water flow supporting the hydrology of Stream A and Wetland AA will be routed
away from the original channel by a series of pipes that will direct water to a below grade BMP composed of sand filter,
sediment, and detention chambers that will remove sediment and nutrients before the water is piped off-site to existing
storm water infrastructure (Attachment F-Construction Plans). This BMP will improve water quality more effectively than
the on-site jurisdictional features as it will treat a greater volume of stormwater.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
An underground storm water detention structure with a slow release rate pipe connected to roof leaders of adjacent
buildings will provide hydrology to the undisturbed section of Stream A, thereby supporting continued function of the
channel and no loss of channel, or hydrology, in the lower 25 feet of Stream A (Attachment F-Impact Figure).
Sediment and erosion control measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters and control off-site
sediment runoff (Attachment F). Construction activities and impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will comply
with all conditions of the Nationwide Permit No. 29 and Water Quality Certification No. 4139. Proposed on-site storm water
structures will treat additional off-site storm water as well. Additionally, a NPDES erosion and sediment control permit will
be obtained.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
19 Yes G7; 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 19 Corps
1 Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
®' Payment to in-lieu fee program
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

3b.Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Credits have not been purchased at the time of
the submittal of this permit application.
Type: Choose One
Type: Choose One
Type: Choose One
Quantity.-
uantity:3b.
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
® Yes, Attachment G
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
178 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Stream
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:
A mitigation ratio of 0.25:1 for Stream A was supported by David Shaeffer during USACE site visit on December
7, 2018. Additionally, no mitigation will be required for impacts to Wetland AA.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes M No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
Zone 2
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 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
This project is not located adjacent to any state regulated riparian buffers.
Yes ® No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
>24%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes El No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The stormwater management plan will be submitted separately from this permit. Briefly, off-site storm water flow supporting
the hydrology of Stream A and Wetland AA will be routed away from the original channel by a series of pipes that will direct
water to a below grade BMP composed of sand filter, sediment, and detention chambers that will remove sediment and
nutrients before the water is piped off-site to existing storm water infrastructure (Attachment F -Construction Plans). An
underground storm water detention structure with a slow release rate pipe connected to roof leaders of adjacent buildings
will provide hydrology to the undisturbed section of Stream A, thereby supporting continued function of the channel and
no loss of channel, or hydrology, in the lower 25 feet of Stream A (Attachment F -Impact Figure).
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Charlotte
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is thisproject?
City of Charlotte
Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
� NSW
apply (check all that apply):
p USMP
0 Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
P Coastal counties
HOW
4a.} Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
ORW
(check all that apply):
D Session Law 2006-246
O Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
p Yes IkI No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
®' Yes Q No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes P No
Page 9 of 11
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
p Yes tkI 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
p Yes fl 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,
O Yes 1 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
Yes No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
Yes No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project is single and complete and will not result in cumulative impacts.
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 resulting from this project will be piped to the Charlotte Water, Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS conducted a protected species habitat assessment of the Sharon Towers site on November 5, 2018 (Attachment D -
CWS Protected Species Habitat Report). A conclusion of no effect was reached for all protected species potentially
occurring within the project limits because suitable habitat does not exist on-site. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina online database for
Union County and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer are included in Attachment D -CWS
Protected Species Habitat Report.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
ElYes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
CWS accessed the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) HPOWEB Map Service at
httg://gis.ncdcr..iov/hpoweb/. No significant cultural resources were depicted as existing on the project site. Additionally,
concurrence from the NC SHPO was received, and no historic and cultural resources are known to be on the site
(Attachment C-NCSHPO Response Letter).
B. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
There will be no fill in mapped FEMA floodplain areas.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA FIRM No. 3710455100K
Sean Martin
C_`n
2/12/2019
Date
Agent's Printed Name
Agent's Signature
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Anne O. Moffat, representing The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte, hereby certify that I have
authorized Sean Martin of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on my behalf and take all
actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for wetlands
determination I permitting and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Mecklenburg County
Owner/Representative Name
Owner/Representative
Parcel IN
Address
17903245 and 17903247
The Presbyterian Home at Charlotte;
5100 Sharon Road, Charlotte, NC
(partial parcels)
POC: Anne O. Moffat
28210
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.
CEO
Authorized signature
Agent's signature
//A /� p 11-6-2018
Date / / Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign
all future application correspondence.

Sharon Towers
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A:
Figures (1-7)
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348

State Location Extent
Kentucky Virginia
P
Tennessee
nrG® yid
North Carolina
F
ta,fi
4G
. Ery
South Carolina+
Georgia ryo
c
fiAY �
rG, �
Parh #`iJh ry tk
� 41 Asx. t'yvr�la+4 c Run�y� 4r 4
0
E-
dell
h Archdalu{j3
Sharon View Rd
Fn�rviax�v Rd
t 00006 Rd
cG
'rG
t -{.:f t n ��. G ...
F Nt o �.r Carmel
rnn Std '� MddIF
C? o
S� 31 on f? U Ir � r+rt 91 e s Rd
,5
C '?usail
! lullc��v
Club
tr
e
Cami'l r
Country
Cr id t. o
e3ty '`� Legend
r<l�It
Project Limits (26.1 ac.)
., i;aerlow
�flS. 1,*1No CY Pirievrlle-Maithc�ww!;pd
Pinevilla—eli 5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Feet
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND VICINITY MAP PROVIDED BY ESRI, 2018.
SCALE:DATEFIGURE NO.
1 inch = 5,000 feet 12/6/2018 Vicinity Map
CV\S PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 1
2018-0348 MLS
�+ Sharon Towers Of
.COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.144552, -80.834297 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Ddve\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\Permit\ArcGIS\Figurel_Vicinity. mxd

MOC _.- -
Wi 6l!1--- D IN _ a - Selwyn
e
Grah rr, aSA1't - -Mid Sth'
,� . z
:u
10,
It J z
R
S-OftDi
t
Bh"D Y1MCXiE
" v
`9a iii
ar,+nv
r,,.�c x� �:'- Sharon View Rd
I
Fr�A: fp J
VFW
o
SH T`7�� Z/
• --
' /
s,
d
c
4 T / f
Sch Y\
Fr:.I
Clem pTHST
.\--- .THE. - _ -
1
L" I
x�
wm �S"
1.__ t? $/v ! I y
i Q2/ Le
�E en d
9
Project Limits (26.1 ac.)
Gc"
F-
USGS7.5MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S):�`± 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
CEAST, NCAND WEDDINGTON NCSC (2017).
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 12/6/2018 USGS Topographic Map
CWS PROJECT N0: DRAWN BY: 2
2018-0348 MLS Sharon Towers
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklen burg County �f
35.144552, -80.834297 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 7
G:\Team Dnves\Consulting Team Dnve\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\Permit\ArcGIS\Figure2_USGS.mzd

G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Dnve\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\201 M348 Sharon Towers\Permit\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aenal.mxd

WkE Cu
MkB
Carnegie Bye°J
MeB
_
(--TU
\
�
MO
Ga ��
��.y
Nru
doAOv
cn
Torp Landing Bv°
o`
v
4 moo+S'°G
n6
Q
\� IuH
C)
Qm
. N
'
c
..
s
O ,. _..
CUB
`
E
AAA �a
S
N
a Bulfinch Rd
m
a
oc
o
5ra
c
k8
EnCD6
En6
a
v.
Ui
)
EnD
G\ef\WT d
.
Colts9ate Rd
B2
EnB
En
O/
a°:
a
O`
HeB �°c
�<
p'ne
U
eK Rd
WkD
\ Wk
r
Q� \mom
Hu
m
1-Ouisbur
r�o
um
Hale\ton Ot
OmF
8 Square `n
1
%
mo
m
0t\e
C
d r°w
Sharon View RderC
GL �W
71
dryer C/ N
a
eD
o�
HeB
(�\e
`Gti e�Q
C 2
e L
v
5�e
in � M
CUB
Round Oak Rd
I . Rothe Or d Or
-T
Rd
,•
Cutchin Dr
SU\K\tK
HuB rvl k B
u
5r
adst°p cl3 Chaucer Dr
HeB \ a.
K�vvt;y 4' Cambria' Rd
awe `Q Insley Ct s `�Q� hampalgn St `oP uD o
J
C u B
cffD Legend
q� 9
I B o oven Q Project Limits (26.1 ac.)
Soil Unit Name and Description Hydric Coverage (%) N Roads
CUB Cecil -Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 100 WuD
Total Coverage: 100 En
-- - 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, DATED 2017
Ciba Fi '. .`iits i
MC
SCALE: 1 Inch = 1,000 feet DATE. 11/5/2018 USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: of Mecklenburg County 4
2018-0348 MLS t Sharon Towers
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: �f
CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.144552, -80.834297 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Ddve\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\Permit\ArcGIS\Figure4_CurrentSoil.mxd

'}
Vill
-
U .S
N,S Cut)
C::t,
UR
war
c-82
/tj
Eno
mi'ri
HUB
r
is
�MS
WUD
10' x+A ':nG Cup
Cub M(-0
;ir
`�
-nf'j
M, r, Fn
� • AANg
Aeter,
g M",13
wU') A"F A Cub
Jj
M C,
i
A"MH O
Ca!?2 v CUD
� Cub `�.
Ne8
0r
cee2
�� xT�
t`nt3
�
MCI
CUP
Eng s...
CUB
r1{,
MBB M.•H
r„B, ',r,
MC
�r
A'}O
t.1k6 -
MS u,
cur+ Park Rd
Enn
_
J iti0 G"t\2
CUB
r., �r Eng
-J
10
Q = ";U0 EnD
tti rAL
Fr1e
Sharon Rd I
W
r +,D\ty
HuB
� cpea
cup i
2 CUD
s°sem*" ' Yr 1..r
" LVa�Li
.•�
HeH
O
r "�MFH
� � 1iuf3
S Cub
Net? Frr8 � � e02 (:e82
N„
'
Eng
UB
FnC / Cub
his
'utl C"G
C�
ErrD ,%NUDt.
rD
Legend
cQt1z tt.
¢fi
`� c :rs
Project Limits (26.1 ac.)
Soil Unit Name and Description Hydric .�,��
CuB Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes No
c{,r l
2,000 1,000 0
2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, INC, SHEET
7, DATED 1976.
1_
Meli
SCALE: 1 inch = 2,000 feet
DATE: 2/7/2019
USDA-NRCS Historic Soil Survey
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
of Mecklenbur_q County
5
2018-0348
MLS
Ct-
Sharon Towers
of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
/�
CAROLINA
WETLAND SERVICER
Mecklenburg County
7
35.144552, -80.834297
CAG
Charlotte, North Carolina
GATeam Ddves\Consulting Team Ddve\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\Permit\ArcGIS\Figure5_HistoricSoils.mxd

I
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\PermMArcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mxd
pN�ae\
Torp Landing By
o Carnegie
By
o
co
Np,
7
3
$
o
O
E
O
2m
_ 0
Bullfinch Rd c
c
a
3
a
m
o
m
3
m
Q
G\en_ K�Ra
O
o
�m
Colts9ate Rd
0
W
o odb/ne
°
�
4n
U
O
o
c
c<D
�m
U�
m-E
Q
li
rm
NaZ6W or
GmF
55�o�e
b �\
o
m
v% o
Cro
ff j
Sharon View Rd wderCt
N
v N
eG'L
� a �o�
o°
°
a��e
0
0
co
c
J
Wamath Dr
N
°
Ruthe rtOrd
U'
L
rn
Dr
Cutchin Dr
Shaker Or
Sutkirk
Rd
� a
°
Meadsto n
Chaucer Or
C0
Kt�\eyP��P
v
Legend
�roa A
Insley Ct a'
Champaign St oQ
------o�
Q Project Limits (26.1 ac.)
a� q,
Roads
oO�fei
National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
OeL
6
W
Freshwater Pond
r p
REFERENCE: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY DATA PROVIDED BY UNITED
STATES FISH AND
rise St
900 450 0
900 Feet
VVILDLIFE SERVICE FOR NORTH CAROLINA, ACCESSED 2018.
BACKGROUND LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2018.
SCALE:
1 inch = 900 feet
DATE:
2/7/2019
National Wetland Inventory
FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
c
6
2018-0348
MLS
Sharon Towers
of
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
CAROLINA
Mecklenburg County
35.144552, -80.834297
CAG
WETLAND SERVICES
Charlotte, North Carolina
7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\PermMArcGIS\Figure6_NWl.mxd

a
iL ❑
V��Q d
Intermittent Stream A
203 If Nazi L
-� CD
(0 QP1
SCP1 LST
�k`SCP2
,DP2
J ♦ SCP3
c
♦ SCP4
leton PAv
►J
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG
COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2018.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED
IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED USING A SUB -FOOT CAPABLE GPS
UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON NOVEMBER 5, 2018. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE
VERIFIED BY THE USACE ON DECEMBER 7. 2018..
o� l
Wetland
oc
� 0.006 ac..
� I
roll Rd
Legend
co
L
Project Limits (26.1 ac.)
LL
• Intermittent Stream
® Wetland
Roads
Tax Parcels
iL ❑
V��Q d
Intermittent Stream A
203 If Nazi L
-� CD
(0 QP1
SCP1 LST
�k`SCP2
,DP2
J ♦ SCP3
c
♦ SCP4
leton PAv
►J
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG
COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2018.
NOTE: JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DELINEATED (FLAGGED
IN THE FIELD), CLASSIFIED, AND MAPPED USING A SUB -FOOT CAPABLE GPS
UNIT BY CWS, INC., ON NOVEMBER 5, 2018. JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WERE
VERIFIED BY THE USACE ON DECEMBER 7. 2018..
o� l
Wetland
oc
� 0.006 ac..
� I
roll Rd
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 250 feet 2/7/2019 Jurisdictional Boundaries
CWS PROJECT N0: DRAWN BY: 7
2018-0348 MLS Sharon Towers
COORDINATES. CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County Of
35.144552, -80.834297 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\Permit\HrcGIS\Figure7_JD.mxd
Legend
Project Limits (26.1 ac.)
• Intermittent Stream
® Wetland
Roads
Tax Parcels
%)
U Buildings
*DP Data Point
/
A SCP Stream Classification Point
i
< Indicates Flow
�► Photo Location and Direction
250
125 0 250 Feet
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 250 feet 2/7/2019 Jurisdictional Boundaries
CWS PROJECT N0: DRAWN BY: 7
2018-0348 MLS Sharon Towers
COORDINATES. CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County Of
35.144552, -80.834297 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 7
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\Permit\HrcGIS\Figure7_JD.mxd

Sharon Towers
Attachments
ATTACHMENT B:
NCSAM Form
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Sharon Towers 2. Date of evaluation: 11/5/18
3. Applicant/owner name: The Presbyterian Home at Charlotte 4. Assessor name/organization: Carolina Wetland Services
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Little Sugar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.144574, -80.834086
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 203
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑AL 1
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)
(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mit) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
[]Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile- assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Stream Site Name Sharon Towers
Stream Category Pbl
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Date of Assessment 11/5/18
Assessor Name/Organization Carolina Wetland Services
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Sharon Towers
Attachments
ATTACHMENT C:
NCSHPO Correspondence
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
January 4, 2019
Anne Moffat
The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Construct Sharon Towers Residential Development, Sharon Road & Sharon View Road, Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, ER 18-4026
Dear Ms. Moffat:
Thank you for your letter of November 27, 2018, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review aQncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6"KR-amona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Sharon Towers
Attachments
ATTACHMENT D:
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
Protected, Endangered, Threatened Species Report

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
November 14, 2018
Ms. Anne O. Moffat
The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte
5100 Sharon Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
Subject: Protected Species Habitat Assessment Report
Sharon Towers
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
Dear Ms. Moffat,
The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to
provide a protected species habitat assessment for Sharon Towers site. The Sharon Towers
site (Mecklenburg County Tax Parcel Nos. 17903245 and 17903247, partial parcels) is
approximately 2.4 acres in extent and is located west of the Sharon Road and Sharon View
Road intersection in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Methods
In -office Desktop Review
To determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially occurring within the
project vicinity and prior to conducting the on-site field investigation, CWS consulted the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Species and Species
of Concern by County for North Carolina online database for Mecklenburg County'. In addition,
CWS performed a data review using the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
Data Explorer2 on November 2, 2018 to determine if any record occurrences of federally -listed,
candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat are located within the project
limits.
Typical habitat requirements for listed species was discerned from multiple USFWS' and
NCNHP' online resources including, but not limited to, specific USFWS species profiles,
recovery plans, NCNHP's Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of
North Carolina, and List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey of
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office. Accessed November 2, 2018. Endangered and Threatened
Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.html
2 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer. Accessed November 2, 2018. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/.
3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant
Species. http://www.fws.gov/nces/es/plant_survey.html. Accessed November 2, 2018.
4 Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. NC Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Accessed from https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylistlnc_counties.html
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 7

Sharon Towers
Protected Species Assessment Report
November 14, 2018
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
Mecklenburg County' and aerial imagery were also reviewed for potential habitat communities
of listed species within the project vicinity (Figures 2 and 3).
Field Survey
CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS), Megan Shelton,
Wetland Professional In Training (WPIT), and Hannah Meeler, Staff Scientist I, conducted a
pedestrian habitat assessment of the project area on November 5, 2018. Potential habitats for
potentially occurring federally -protected species that were identified during the desktop review
were assessed in the field for the quality of physical and/or biological features essential to the
conservation of the applicable species. Additionally, during the pedestrian habitat assessment,
areas were reviewed for applicable federally protected species. However, formal surveys were
not conducted for the occurence of protected species. Identification references for natural
communities include the National Land Cover Database (2011)6.
Results
Based on the NCNHP data explorer review, there are no current records of federally -protected
species within the project limits or within a mile of the project limits (Attachment A). The
USFWS lists seven federally protected species for Mecklenburg County (Table 1). An official
species list has not been obtained from the USFWS Asheville Field Office.
Table 1. Unofficial List of Federally -Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the
Sharon Towers Site, Mecklenburc County, NC.
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status*
Record Status
Plant
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
E
Current
schweinitzii
sunflower
Plant
Echinacea
Smooth coneflower
E
Current
laevigata
Plant
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Current
Animal
Lasmigona
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Current
decorata
Animal
Bombus affinis
Rusty -patched
E
Historic
bumble bee
Myotis
Northern -long-eared
Animal
T
Current
septentrionalis
bat
Animal
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
BGPA
Current
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Three terrestrial community types were identified within the project area during the field survey.
These community types consist of deciduous forest, herbaceous area, and low intensity
development (Figure 3). Of the identified on-site community types, the herbaceous area is
considered potential habitat for federally threatened or endangered species that could
' United States Department of Agriculture, 2017. Web Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Accessed 11/2/18.
Source: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
e MLRC. National Land Cover Database, 2011. https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_leg.php
Page 2 of 7

Sharon Towers November 14, 2018
Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0348
potentially occur within the project limits. A brief description of each species habitat
requirements and determination of effect findings are listed below by species.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzJh
Habitat Description:
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb with yellow rays and yellow centers. They
can reach heights of five feet. Populations are limited to the piedmont of North and
South Carolina. It has been listed as an Endangered species under the ESA since 1991.
The typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line
right-of-ways, open areas, either natural or human -maintained habitats, or edges of
upland woods. Major characteristics of soils associated with suitable Schweinitz's
sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes,
soils that are clay like in both composition and texture (and often with substantial rock
fragments), soils that have a high shrinkage swell capacity, and those which vary over
the course of the year from very wet to very dry.
Biological Analysis:
Potential on site habitat for this species is limited to the herbaceous areas along the
forest edges (Photographs 1 and 2). The desktop review and field survey assessment
determined that this area does have the proper soils to support Schweinitz's sunflower.
However, these areas are too heavily maintained through the practices of mowing and
pesticide application. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower or other Helianthus
species were observed during the field assessment on November 5, 2018, supportive
habitat was not present, and no known population records of the species occurs within
one mile of the project area in the NHP database, which leads CWS to conclude that
the project will not affect Schweinitz's sunflower.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Habitat Description:
Smooth coneflower is a tall, perennial herbaceous plant found in areas with abundant
sunlight where competition in the herbaceous layer is minimal. It has been federally
listed as Endangered under the ESA since 1992.8 Typical habitat for this plant includes
meadows, open woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands,
cedar barrens, dry limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights-of-way. In
North Carolina, the species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium- rich soils
associated with gabbro and diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell,
Misenheimer, and Picture soil series. It grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little
competition in the herbaceous layer, and periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime,
well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that prevents encroachment of shade -producing
woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody succession is held in check, it is
characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.
United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/frl852.pdf.
8 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Echinacea laevigata (Smooth
Coneflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docstfederal_register/fr2l40.pdf.
Page 3 of 7

Sharon Towers November 14, 2018
Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0348
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences for this
species within the project limits, or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A).
Though disturbed open areas conducive to early -succession species are present in the
project area, these areas consist of saprolite and residuum weathered soils, absent of
magnesium and calcium and are therefore not suitable for smooth coneflower.9 Due to
the lack of habitat and known occurrences, CWS concludes that this project will not
affect Smooth coneflower.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxi)i
Habitat Description:
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous shrub. It is densely hairy with compound leaves
exhibiting evenly -serrated leaflets. Flowers are small, greenish to white, in terminal
clusters. Fruits are red drupes produced from August to October. It has been listed as
an Endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1989.10 It is
found on the coastal plains of Virginia to Florida, with most populations occurring in
North Carolina. It prefers sandy or rocky open woods with basic soils, as well as,
highway right-of-ways, roadsides, or edges of artificially -maintained clearings.
Biological Analysis:
A NCNHP data record review revealed that there are no current occurrences for this
species within the project limits, or within a one -mile radius of the project (Attachment A).
Though disturbed open areas conducive to early -succession species are present in the
project area, these areas consist of acidic Cecil soils that are not suitable for Michaux's
sumac (Figure 2). Additionally the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office states in its
Michaux's sumac profile page that the species is considered historic in Mecklenburg
County11. Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences, CWS concludes that this
project will not affect Michaux's sumac.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Habitat Description:
The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations within the
Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah
River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North
Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and
Catawba River systems. The species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet
of shorelines, throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the
Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed
into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with
moderate current. Recently, the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is in sections of
United States Department of Agriculture, 2017. Web Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Accessed 11/2/18.
Source: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
10 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;Determination of Endangered
Status for Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac). http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/f`ederal_registertfrl601.pdf.
71 Suiter, Dale. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Raleigh Ecological Services Field, USFWS. Michaux's Sumac Species Profile page. Last
updated August 24, 2017. Accessed March 16, 2018 https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_michauxs_sumac.html
Page 4 of 7

Sharon Towers November 14, 2018
Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0348
streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with sand and gravel, and
with wide riparian buffers. 12
Biological Analysis:
A pedestrian foot survey conducted on November 5, 2018 revealed one degraded urban
intermittent stream within the project limits, which is not conducive to Carolina
heelsplitter habitat due to its lack of continuous flow throughout the year (Photograph 3).
Due to to the lack of habitat, CWS concludes that this project will not affect the
Carolina heelsplitter.
Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)
The Rusty patched bumble bee was listed as Endangered under the ESA in January 2017.13
Rusty patched bumble bees once occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies of the Upper
Midwest and Northeast, but most grasslands and prairies have been lost, degraded, or
fragmented by conversion to other uses. According to USFWS guidance, "the rusty patched
bumble bee is likely to be present in scattered locations that cover only about 0.1 % of the
species' historical range. It is within these limited areas USFWS recommend that federal
agencies and others consider the need to consult with the Service on the potential effects of
their actions or the potential need for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B). For the
remaining 99.9% of the historical range, USFWS advise agencies and others that this bumble
bee is not likely to be present and that consultations or incidental take coverage is not
necessary."" According to USFWS' Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Interactive Map, Mecklenburg
County is not within the 0.1 % historical range as no high potential zones or low potential zones
are present within Mecklenburg County. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the
rusty -patched bumble bee.
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the
white -nose syndrome disease. Summer habitat (roosting habitat) of the NLEB includes forests
and woodlots containing live trees and/or dead snags greater than three inches diameter at
breast height with cavities or crevices. Winter habitat (hibernacula) of the NLEB includes caves,
mines, rocky areas, or structures that mimic similar conditions such as culverts greater than
48 -inch in diameter. 15 The NLEB was listed as Threatened (T) on April 2, 2015.
The forested areas within the property are potential habitats for the NLEB. A Standard Local
Operating Procedure for Endangered Species Act Compliance (SLOPES) was established for
NLEB between the USFWS Asheville and Raleigh Ecological Offices and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, on January 31, 2017.16 This SLOPES
defines how the USACE will make determinations of effect to the NLEB on projects in which the
12 NCDOT TE Animal Habitat Descriptions. 2015.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Envi ronmenta I/Compliance%20G uides%20and%20Proced uresrrE%2OAn i mal%2OHabitat%
20Descriptions%2OMar 6_2015.pdf
13 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwestlendangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
74 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. https://www.fws.gov/midwestlendangered/insects/rpbb/index.html
75 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016.4(d) Rule for the Northern Long -Eared Bat; Final rule.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-14/pdf/2016-00617.pdf
15 USACE http://saw-reg.usace.anny.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
Page 5 of 7

Sharon Towers November 14, 2018
Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0348
USACE is the lead federal agency. Alternative Local Procedure 1 (ALP 1) applies for the
Sharon Towers site as the action area is within range of the NLEB," the action area is located
outside of a red 12 -digit HUC as defined by the Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, 18 and
consultation by the USACE is required on other listed species or critical habitat.
The final 4(d) rule exempts incidental take of NLEB associated with activities that occur greater
than 0.25 miles from a known hibernaculum site and greater than 150 feet from a known,
occupied maternity roost from June 1 -July 31. In accordance with ALP 1 and the final 4(d) rule
(effective as of February 16, 2016), any incidental take that may result from associated activities
is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Therefore, this project is exempt under the 4(d) rule.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,19 enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone, without a
permit issued, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Habitat for the
bald eagle includes cliffs and forested areas typically within 1.0 mile of estuaries, large lakes,
reservoirs, rivers, seacoast, and as they become more abundant, stands of undisturbed forest.
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1 mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on November 2, 2018 using 2018 color aerials. No water
bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project
study area and the area within the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the
NCNHP database on November 2, 2018 revealed no known occurrences of this species within
1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences, CWS
concludes that this project will not affect this species.
Summary
Based on the literature search and the results of the on-site assessment for suitable habitat of
federally -protected endangered, and threatened species, suitable habitat was not observed
within the project limits for Schweinitz's sunflower, smooth coneflower, Michaux's sumac, bald
eagle, or Carolina heelsplitter. Additionally, the project area is not located within the 0.1 %
historical range of the rusty -patched bumble bee. CWS has concluded that activities within the
project area will not directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of Schweinitz's
sunflower, the smooth coneflower, Michaux's sumac, bald eagle, rusty -patched bumble bee, and
Carolina heelsplitter. Additionally, based on the project area location, no tree removal activities
will occur within a 150 -foot radius of a known, occupied NLEB maternity roost from June 1 -July
31 and no trees will be removed within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at any time of year.
Therefore, any incidental take on NLEB that may result from associated activities is exempt
under the 4(d) rule and notifications will follow the SLOPES agreement20. Biological
determinations requirements for federally protected species are summarized in Table 2 (below).
17 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
18 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. Northern Long -Eared Bat.
19 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/eaglepermits/bagepa.html
20 http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB_in_WNC.htmi
Page 6 of 7

Sharon Towers November 14, 2018
Protected Species Assessment Report CWS Project No. 2018-0348
Table 2_ Rinlonical Determination Renuirements Summary Table for Federally Protected Species
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
** - Required in accoradnce with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
A biological assessment was not conducted for this project. All biological determinations of
effect represent the best professional opinion of CWS and are not official determinations of
effect. It is the responsibility of the lead federal agency to render an official determination of
effect. Should the lead federal agency agree with CWS's initial findings of no effect, then no
USFWS consultation is required to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Should the lead federal agency's determination of effect differ from the findings of CWS, formal
or informal consultation with USFWS may be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not
hesitate to contact Sean Martin at 828-719-1320 or [e-mail] should you have any
questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Sean Martin
Senior Project Scientist
Christine A. Geist, PWS, CE
Principal Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Site Location
Figure 2: USDA-NRCS Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
Figure 3: Aerial Imagery
Attachment A: NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment B: Representative Photographs (1-3)
Page 7 of 7
Federal
Effect on Listed
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status*
Species
Determination
Required
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Will Not Affect
No
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
Will Not Affect
No
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Will Not Affect
No
Lasmigona decorata
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Will Not Affect
No
Bombus affinis
Rusty -patched bumble bee
E
Will Not Affect
No
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern -long-eared bat
T
Exempt/Excepted
Yes**
Haliaeetus
Bald eagle
BGPA
Will Not Affect
No
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, T - Threatened, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
** - Required in accoradnce with SLOPES, ALP 1 agreement.
A biological assessment was not conducted for this project. All biological determinations of
effect represent the best professional opinion of CWS and are not official determinations of
effect. It is the responsibility of the lead federal agency to render an official determination of
effect. Should the lead federal agency agree with CWS's initial findings of no effect, then no
USFWS consultation is required to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Should the lead federal agency's determination of effect differ from the findings of CWS, formal
or informal consultation with USFWS may be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not
hesitate to contact Sean Martin at 828-719-1320 or [e-mail] should you have any
questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Sean Martin
Senior Project Scientist
Christine A. Geist, PWS, CE
Principal Scientist
Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Site Location
Figure 2: USDA-NRCS Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
Figure 3: Aerial Imagery
Attachment A: NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment B: Representative Photographs (1-3)
Page 7 of 7

kleCatholic �1 f
i C sch
tElemSch )
I •�O�p /! '\_.... AG xmder RUNNyµEDE I FfRNC*C IFF RD.
911 0
\n
0—
"-7
"-
R\\
Greek Z C \� i _ `�y � /— ;� � I
SC CD
�O "a('�K i•r,�,;, '�fr.� l_�flE pi
-ate
\\10
CARNf !E 2� / 'f0 "('�� LEVR
Cl��o \ SHARON El
FA
M kion
Sch
ARCMOt_rT[
--
W
" f
WAMAIII OR
77p iC �i�
-- rA off v w Ao 2
KIRK, D p ,!.' C �.. SHA
SU r
J – \
4
CHAMPA/Gly'.
EAY1 Q 57 A.
R Y t dp ) GpTf LION AVE / i Otl 11, ~ COUNT
RD
ft iss'
t
Eleni Sch EITHSTf
"!WEEK��--
t
p�N
( i
I
_. 1
E=w
} �� y� Legend
o �ti�El r N °
II
-5T �-1! -C J- - Project Limits (2.4 ac.)
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): I _ 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
CHARLOTTE EAST, NC AND WEDDINGTON NC -SC (2017).
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 11/6/2018 USGS Site Location
CWS PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: 1
2018-0348 MLS Sharon Towers
Of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.144552, -80.834297 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 3
G:\Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\PETS\ArcGIS\Figurel_USGS.mxd

Wk
%IkB
MeB
7-�
�
Wu
Or
U)
Torp Landing By U3
3
MID
moo+ S°� io��
Mom/So
nB
CM
o
c�0 0
I o IuB
0
m n
4
3
r o
Oo
n
CuB
o
O Qm
i Ct
a Bullfinch Rd-
o�
f
p
kB
EnB
EnB �a0
Ur
EnD
o �
C o/tsgate
,
82
G1enk\rk
EnB
En Ra j
O`
e02
HeB c
I t' S e"i ieLWV
o
pinel/
V c
Ra Q�
Wk D
W k B
Qm aiieyRd
o
r
c m
N
Q�
O`
Hu o
-E
a�
LOU -CO mF
LL .
Hazelton Dr
urg Sggare In cJ
4� a
�
m
i
\
03
a
N o
C�Ow
Sharon View Rd de�C
E
pe�Cr
o
CeD2
oo
v
, `G�
e . C 2
Heb
o
Ga e`
,
BM
CuB Wamath Dr
Round Oak Rd
Rdth
e�ord Dr
/
Cutchin Dr----"
MkB
gUAKvtk
HUB
Meaaston �n
HeB
Chaucer Dr--___� -
P1
HeB �
Cambria Rd
Kd1eY
v
� `
Q Insley Ct
Champaign St
ocP .�c°o a
o
a�P
HuB
CuD a �t
Legend
y Cu w°°
T°aeie o` N I g dyCrOve�n Project Limits (2.4 ac.)
Soil Unit Name and Description Hydric Coverage (%) Roads
CuB Cecil -Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes No 100 WUD
Total Coverage: 100 En
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC, DATED 2017.
SCALE: 1 inch = 1,000 feet DATE. 11/6/2018 USDA-NRCS Current Soil Survey FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 11 of Mecklenburg County 2
2018-0348 MLS Sharon Towers
of
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Mecklenburg County
35.144552, -80.834297 1 CAG WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 3
G \Team Drives\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\PETSVArcGIS\Figure2_CurrentSoils.mxd

G:\Team Ddves\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\PETS\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aedal.mxd
SCALE:
1 inch = 200 feet
DATE:
11/6/2018
�+
CAROLINA
WETLAND SERVICES
Aerial Map
FIGURE NO.
of
3
CWS PROJECT N0:
2018-0348
DRAWN BY:
MLS
Sharon Towers
Mecklenburg County
Charlotte, North Carolina
COORDINATES:
35.144552, -80.834297
CHECKED BY:
CAG
G:\Team Ddves\Consulting Team Drive\2018\2018 Consulting Projects\2018-0348 Sharon Towers\PETS\ArcGIS\Figure3_Aedal.mxd

■ e Roy Cooper, Governor
IBM NC DEPARTMENT OF
Susi Hamilton. Secretary
■m,,,nm NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
r "• Waiter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-7435
November 2, 2018
Megan Shelton
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
RE: Sharon Towers
Dear Megan Shelton:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database, indicates
that there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httos://www.fws.aov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 W JONES STREET. PALEsIGH, NC: 276,03 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALOGH, NC 27699
OFC 4?1q 7o` ()I o + FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Sharon Towers
November 2, 2018
N CN H D E-7435
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi? S -Very --- Endangered G3 S2
Low
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner a 1,
�.' Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Grubb Real Estate Preservation Foundation Grubb Real Estate Preservation Foundation Private
Preserve
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on November 2, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q4 Oct 2018.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-7435: Sharon Towers
November 2. 2018
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 3 of 3
1:20,901
0 0.175 035 0.7 mi
0 0.275 0.55 1,1 km
Sauces.Corp,... HERE, Garcon. Int—OL 1-1 P C., GEBCO USGS
FAO PS NRCAN, Ge 13—, IGN Kad-1.1 NL Ordnance Survey, Es, Japan
LIETI Esn Cnna (Hong ") —V� C, OpenSU-IM.p tonin ots and
"GIS U— C -4y
Fm—on
P� Liall
Fairmeadows
Parkstone
K,J
7
Gomer
Squ—
prang Valley
A,
'IF I
.esmers NI
W..Cls
N
W E
+
Sh... W.—,
November 2. 2018
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 3 of 3
1:20,901
0 0.175 035 0.7 mi
0 0.275 0.55 1,1 km
Sauces.Corp,... HERE, Garcon. Int—OL 1-1 P C., GEBCO USGS
FAO PS NRCAN, Ge 13—, IGN Kad-1.1 NL Ordnance Survey, Es, Japan
LIETI Esn Cnna (Hong ") —V� C, OpenSU-IM.p tonin ots and
"GIS U— C -4y

Ok
„•v
-..
s
n
Y
_ . � r .x. fix,-•,.��i"3.�:fi�:.�-` �,aw'•a��r�;z R
� t y
olW
n
` `', 1

`` '''r1
zr
'fie
• � .s yllMV�
i
r

Sharon Towers
Attachments
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
ATTACHMENT E:
Stream and Wetland Dataforms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Sharon Towers City/County: Mecklenburg County Sampling Date: 11/5/18
Applicant/Owner: The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte State: NC Sampling Point: DPI
Investigator(s): AVH/MLS/HEM Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.144800 Long: -80.834135 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Cecil -Urban land complex, 2-8% slopes (CuB) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology 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 No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Data point is representative of non-juristictional upland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (C1)
—Drainage Patterns (610)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (B1) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
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:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Morus rubra
10
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
U/mus a/ata
15
Yes
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
5•
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 22.2% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
35
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
18
20% of total cover:
7
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species x2=
1.
Phyllostachys aurea
10
Yes
UPL
FAC species x3=
2.
FACU species x4=
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5,
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7,
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8,
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
10
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
5
20% of total cover:
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
E/aeagnus umbellata
5
Yes
UPL
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Hedera helix
5
Yes
FACU
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Phyllostachys aurea 5 Yes UPL
4.
Vitis rotundifolia
2
No
FAC
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Boehmeria cylindrica
1
No
FACW
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Oxalis stricta
1
No
FACU
height.
7.
Ligustrum lucidum
2
No
UPL
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
Fraxinus pennsy/vanica
1
No
FACW
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9.
Fragaria vesca
2
No
FACU
(1 m) tall.
10.
Juncus effusus
1
No
FACW
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
Carex /udda
1
No
OBL
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
28
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
14
20% of total cover:
6
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
Toxicodendron radicans
15
Yes
FAC
2.
Hedera helix
15
Yes
FACU
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
30
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
15
20% of total cover:
6
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
22.2% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
Histosol (Al)
_Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type'
Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-4
10YR 5/3
100
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Loamy/Clayey
4-10
10YR 5/2
98
7.5YR 4/4 2 C
M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
10-16
10YR 5/3
65
7.5YR 4/6 35 C
PUM
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
16-20
10YR 5/6
90
7.5YR 7/6 5 C
M
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2.5YR 6/3 5 D
M
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
'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)
_Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Red Parent Material (F21)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Redox Depressions (F8)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
_Sandy
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Indicators of hydric soil are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Sharon Towers City/County: Mecklenburg County Sampling Date: 11/5/18
Applicant/Owner: The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): DJZ/SAM Section, Township, Range: Charlotte
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.144392 Long: -80.833742 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Cecil -Urban land complex, 2-8% slopes (CuB) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology 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 X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of jurisdictional Wetland AA
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (814)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
X High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (810)
X Saturation (A3) X
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (616)
—Water Marks (61) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63) X
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water -Stained Leaves (89)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
X FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 3
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 2
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. E/aeagnus angustifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sampling Point: DP2
Absolute Dominant Indicator
x 1 =
10
=Total Cover
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
50% of total cover:
5
20% of total cover:
Number of Dominant Species
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2
(A)
5
Total Number of Dominant
FACW
2.
Bambusa vulgaris
Species Across All Strata:
3
(B)
3.
Percent of Dominant Species
3
Yes
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
66.7%
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
5.
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
6.
20% of total cover:
10 Yes FACU
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
66.7% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
OBL species
x 1 =
10
=Total Cover
FAC species
x 3 =
50% of total cover:
5
20% of total cover:
2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1.
Juncus effusus
5
Yes
FACW
2.
Bambusa vulgaris
2
No
FACU
3.
Ludwigia a/temifolia
3
Yes
FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
6
20% of total cover:
3
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1.
Lonicera japonica
2
No
FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
2
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
1
20% of total cover:
1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
66.7% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
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 Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP2
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
0-5 10YR 3/2 90
7.5YR 4/4 10 C PL
Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
5-12 10YR 4/2 75
7.5YR 4/6 25 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
12-20
Loamy/Clayey See notes
'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)
_Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
147, 148) _2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Histic Epipedon (A2)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_Black Histic (A3)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
X Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Red Parent Material (172 1)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Redox Depressions (F8)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
_Sandy
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Umbric Surface (1713) (MLRA 122, 136) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface (S7)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,
147, 148) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Indicators of hydric soil are present.
12-20 Gley 1 7/1 75 7.5YR 5/6 25
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 11/5/18
Project/Site: Sharon Towers
Latitude: 35.144574
Evaluator: MLS/HEM
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.834086
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent it>_ 19 orperennial if>_ 30'
22.5
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent
Other
Stream Name:
Stream A SCP1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
10
Absent
Weak Moderate Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank`
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No= 0
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
7_5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No= 0
Yes= 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 11/5/18
Project/Site: Sharon Towers
Latitude: 35.144505
Evaluator: MLS/HEM
County: Mecklenberg
Longitude: -
80.835068
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if>_ 19 or perennial if z 30`
3
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Ephemeral
Other
Stream Name:
SCP2
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 0
Absent
Weak Moderate Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank'
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0 1
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
;artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 0
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes= 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 11/5/18
Project/Site: Sharon Towers
Latitude: 35.144351
Evaluator: DJZ/SAM
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.833717
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if a 19 or perennial if>_ 30'
4.5
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Ephemeral
Other
Stream Name:SCP3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 3
Absent
Weak Moderate Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank' - N/A see notes
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool se uence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate - N/A see nates
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
?3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No= 0
Yes = 3
'artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 1_5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed - N/A see notes
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed - N/A see notes
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae 1
0
0.5 11
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other= 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes:
Concrete makes up stream bed, as a result no plants or fibrous roots in stream bed
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version
4.11
Date: 11/5/18
Project/Site: Sharon Towers
Latitude: 35.144230
Evaluator: DJZ/SAM
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:
-80.833670
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ifz 19 or perennial if>_ 30`
9.5
Stream Determination: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Ephemeral
Other
Stream Name:SCP4
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
5
Absent
Weak Moderate Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank'
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In-channel stricture: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool se uence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No= 0
Yes = 3
*artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
1_5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfsh
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
Notes: English ivy in streambed
Sketch:

Sharon Towers
Attachments
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
ATTACHMENT F:
Construction Plan/Impact Figure

Sharon Towers
Attachments
ATTACHMENT G:
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348
NCDMS In -lieu Fee Mitigation Approval Letter

Expiration of Acceptance: 8!812019
County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/4011 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
! River Basin
Catawba
Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
(8 -digit HUCj
03050103 Warm Stream 178
'DMS proposes to utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement.
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Sean Martin, agent
Sincerely,
Jam . Stanfill
Asset agement Supervisor
Mirth Carolina Department ofErrvironmentalQuality I OivlslonofMrtlyatlon$eivices
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.7078976
ROY COOPER
NORTH CAROLINA
Governor
Entdronmewal Quaftty
MICHAEL S. REGAN
February 8, 2019
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
arrector
Anne Moffatt
The Presbyterian Home of Charlotte
5100 Sharon Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
Project: Sharon Towers
Expiration of Acceptance: 8!812019
County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/4011 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
! River Basin
Catawba
Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
(8 -digit HUCj
03050103 Warm Stream 178
'DMS proposes to utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement.
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Sean Martin, agent
Sincerely,
Jam . Stanfill
Asset agement Supervisor
Mirth Carolina Department ofErrvironmentalQuality I OivlslonofMrtlyatlon$eivices
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.7078976

Sharon Towers
Attachments
ATTACHMENT H:
Photo Page
February 12, 2019
CWS Project No. 2018-0348

IVI
r e rye cz
wwSP Of
1W

Cr-
�Mod $• r t
x '�CC`r.�` ^'•1 W:•}6116 Y rnd 1w �i _ . .. �
i
f
4
'- - -'�--'�►At . '.amu: . 4x,l�:i..i:..�--��"�.. s .'�.�r.: �«�+a

Sharon Towers February 6, 2019
Attachment H: Photopage CWS Project No. 2018-0348
Photograph 5. View of non -jurisdictional upland area at the location of DP1, facing northwest.
Photopage 3 of 3

Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
v
. Tax # 179-032-12
Robert Darling & \ e
vi '• Katherine Gmerek � V• �\
\" G DB 6494 Pg 623
\ Lot 12 Bik 2 MB 9-49'
\ \
\ \ \\ Zoning: R-3 \ � •�
35' POST CONSTRUCTION
s
BUFFER PER POLARIS
Tarr 179-032-11 Y� \
.' \ ,• fw ' � N ! C Lleline T, Shaw
eterA Shaw \
r \>
: `B 9411 Pg 374
11 Blk 2 MB 9-495
\ Zoning: R-3
1
` '106 \'P 011
-'; Tax # 179-032-10
\ -
:' Angela L. Butler & au
\ \ Kevin Butler % \
DB 10912 Pg $4$ /
Lot 10 Blk 2 MB 9-495 \
690 ', Zoning: R-3
<1
\'i-
i
! �(}\� \ YS� Tax # 179-432-09 30 POST CONSTRUCTI� N
ae \ ° A ' �i� Katherine Watson & BUFFER PER POLARIS \�
Stephen Screen
DS 29992 Pg 666
Lot 9 Blk 2 MB 9-493
Zoningi R-3
! \
51 V vv ,
Tax # 179-032-08
Andrew D. Thrasher &
A
Marsha H Thrasher /
�� Lot 8 MB 9-493
G7 p
�pO \ Zoning; R-3
t 4 f
e. �pQ
\n \.,. "
_ � 6s5 _ Tax # 179-Q32 07
The Presbyterian Home
A ago
!' at Charlotte, Inc.
6
` . 3
1_ DB 26414 Pg 225
.._ A
Lot7MB94
e 9
i <
,
ti t� a:a
Zoning: R
ST Is
_ \
690
y
s
T
M. ,
r Y
>
., :• .., , , > YJ1 \ _- ,A ., , � f— CLASS A RIP RAP APRON.
U A,., WW SPILLWAY L=6' x W=T x T=10"
V: L l
l N E E 685 50 !
Ud G eR a Tax # 179-032-06
s_
( >
O ..
. , ..
!
John WilliamWalden Jr.BAFELES(TYP
(REFER TO
..,..
& Barbara . Walden
a ..
,LD 30.19
6� C SM
}
ss2
t0 _ F' 47
! DB 29.99 5
3
G TEMP. CHECK DAM>.. .'
Lot 6 MB 9-493
PROP, TEMP SLOPE RA
I
� G a sQ D
..-
(CLDSM 3 . T -
o � t t "�1
Zoning: s a {J /
CO
9
... i Gp^)
a
x
69i}
�5
3
PR PDI 8 b e o
Tax # 179-032-05
(CONVERT EX CI Ta PROP DI) a+� '
R 2.5' PVC INV. OUT: 682 67
s � ... ........, ! The Presbyterian Home
RIM FLUSH WITH GUTTER LINE - 1rm
� at Charlotte, Inc. ,o
6 z
DB 25125 P 530
33 .F. OF 2 5 P
Lot $ MB J-493
L VC a' i 1.�r 0!
;.
x
9r1 R:_3
,
f
.5 IA. c�
SKIMMER E D 2 `
6,<�
SKIMMER ORIFICE DIA, 2,3
4
F9
t
SKIMMER ! V, ELEV.693
<0
�3
m 4
5
7 S
IMMER BASIN 1
s
I t
.
+
\ t
r
+ ,n
(CLDMS 30,02A) a {
M
Tax # 179-032-04
..:. 1_
., Stream A F DAM, 687,00
P
9
6
T 1
+,g
.,, .. R
Zonftl
`
I P ' B RIP RA APRON
r \ i
`6q7 L x W'^ 1 x
E,
1
I -AP
O 3
� .. . 2" TStw�f' SLOT: ?� N
RIM. 69S,64 ..
o
1
....
PROP
FES -2 INV.IN.683.3(PROP T 6)
a _
INV. PR CE3+3 4
ny OUT: 683,33 2 N 55 (PROP CB 3
I
t Vit„ 3 882 R
t
f
.,,.
h
Wetland
R F3 C 3
j
R 8 9:87 1 IM, �I
m
a
f
-48 +NV, fiN 683.09 PROF CB -4)
AA
24 iV.CL,.683.09(PROP FES?..)NIB
..
r
61% PROP ST -5
e
5�.
a
RIM' t 87112 m
TEMP, CHECK DAM ..., .,.. c
LCiM 30.10A
s i ) TYP,+...
, . 7
OUT: 664,12 (PROP B4
= ::
[ ,>•; . r -.d,
... �TEMP. SILT SILT DITCH:1�j\18 ET PROTiO ,6sCEDSM3005) TYP
�,n_LIMIT
.+.�_
OF DISTURBANCEaa
>. A
s v
S
1 }
1
.,,... �$ r' ', DRAINAGE BOUNDARY TO „
t ® BASIN
N
f
SKIMMER
I w ..
l
Y J
, SINGLE ROIA SILT FENCE ""Y
,
i
>
17 1
411,141
r
t
7
p v
s � ,
s
o , K
e
--....... ,;. ,.. m.{; R SILT FEivG1: �',
- .
,
,
� 6�5 � „7� � +,` � we�NSTRucTIaN ENTRANCE�t
� .. r•["" 1CLDSM30.11A)
.LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE..4
d uR..
Ba
_ e
X ago
w_. x
l
< i
F
k � i
X t
Y
i
d
703
-
X
gi
4
'34
+ < a
t. is :i . ...... .. ...... :. .:
m < .. ..,
ST
.�T _-
-.
ST
std
-NROAD
- SHARD 2 �o+,
(VARIABLE WIDTH CDOT RAM 1
® to
a
r
II
1
PIN 18-313-398
CHARTER TOWNHOL,„ E
ASSOCIATES
SHARON RD
PIN 20-944-C99
CHARLOTTE, NC 2$ .,1
SHARON ROAD CONDOMINIUMS - F19 F129J or_ Air,
SHARON RD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28210
DB 5321, PG 261
ZONED: R-15MF(CD)
\1
2/4/2019 ,IAB PM BARRETT BLACKBURN N:1_2018\1018289tCAD,CONSTRUCTION t)OCUMENTS\OFFSITE ROADWAY`.18288_PLN-EC PH2 DtAA_.
MB 21, PG 840
ZONED: B-1(CD) & R-15MF(CD)
—
LandDesign.
GONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. OBTAIN GRADING/EROc,(N CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE
223 NORTH GRAHAM STREET
A STT
ENGINEERING DEPARTIOENT FOR EROSION CONTROL PLAN
CHARLOTTE,
OTTE,NO
2. SET UP AN ON-SITE PRE-EONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR
704.333.0325
WWW.LANDDESIGN.COM
OF THE CITY ENGINEERNG DEPARTMENT TO DISCUSS EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
NO ENG, FIRM LICENSE # C-0658
FAILURE TO SCHEDULE 1riEETING 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY OR
DEMOLITION IS A VIOLA ,JN OF CHAPTER 17 ON THE CITY CODE AND SUBJECT TO A FINE.
3, PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING OR INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL DEVICES,
CONTRACTOR SHALL S7 AKE CLEARING LIMITS AND STAKE ALL TREES, AND STRUCTURES
TO REMAIN AND BE PR 71ECTED.
4, INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, SILT FENCE, AND ANY OTHER
MEASURES AS SHOWN CgA' STAGE 1 PLANS, CLEARING ONLY AS NECESSARY TO INSTALL
THESE DEVICES TIRE MASH MAY BE REQUIRED IF CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO RETAIN 101L,
6 CALL FOR ON-SITE INSFE C"TION BY INSPECTOR. WHEN APPROVED, INSPECTOR ISSUES
THE GRADING PERMIT L_EARING AND GRUBBING MAY BEGIN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
DILIGENTLY AND CONTII,JOUSLY MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND
STRUCTURES,
9, CONTRACTOR SHALL EI)EURE THAT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE AND
FUNCTIONING PRIOR TC 3RUBBiNG AND GRADING OPERATIONS,
10, FOR PHASED EROSION :'-DNTROL PLANS, CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH EROSION
CONTROL INSPECTOR P=IOR TO COMMENCING WITH EACH PHASE OF EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES.
11. DEMOLITION OF EXISTINa SITE. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS
ASSOCIATED WITH DEN 4_ITION.
12, BEGIN GRADING ACTIVi ES INSTALLING ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS
INDICATED, AS REQUIRED, AND AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE EROSION CONTROL
INSPECTOR.
13, ALL FILL PLACED SHALL MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO SKIMMER BASINS AT ALL TIMES.
14, AS CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST DIVERSION DITCHES,
AS NECESSARY, AS SITE IS BROUGHT TO FINISHED GRADE
15, AS STORM INLETS ARE 1, DED, PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION AS INDICATED ON C2.06.
16, STABILIZATION IS THE BEST FORM OF EROSION CONTROL. TEMPORARY SEEDING IS
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE EROSION CONTROL ON LARGE DENUDED AREAS AND
ESPECIALLY WHEN SPE''" TICALLY REQUIRED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION
SEQUENCE. ALL SLOPES MUST BE SEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS
REFER TO THE CITY OF':'HARLOTTE SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS,
17, COORDINATE WITH EROEON CONTROL INSPECTOR PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES
18, Na DEVICE SHALL BE REMOVED UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED AND WITH APPROVAL OF
EROSION CONTROL CO ,RDINATOR.
19. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS 3OMPLETE AND SITE IS STABILIZED, CONTACT EROSION
CONTROL INSPECTOR T'- SCHEDULE SITE VISIT REQUESTING REMOVAL OF THE EROSION
CONTROL SKIMMER BAS=F% ONCE APPROVED BY INSPECTOR, REMOVE BASIN AND INSTALL
FINAL RUN OF STORM DRAIN AIN PIPE AND PERMANENT RIP RAP APRON.
20. ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE CHECKED WEEKLY AND WITHIN 24 HOURS
AFTER EVERY MAJOR S"ORM EVENT GREATER THAN 1/2" OF RAINFALL, IF ANY FAILURES
ARE FOUND THEY SHOO.#.0 BE REPAIRED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
21, ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
N.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL, U.S DEPT, OF
AGRICULTURE, CITY OF :,HARLOTTE SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE, AND
THE CHARLOTTE LAND: EVELOPMENT STANDARDS MANUAL (CLDSM).
EROSION CONTROL -STAGE 2
SHEET NUMBER
2".
ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE: 30" X 42"
GENERAL NOTES
1 ALL "''STD." NUMBERS REFER TO THE CHARLOTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
MANUAL.
2 ON-SITE BURIAL PITS RE'OUIRE AN ON-SITE DEMOLITION LANDFILL PERMIT FROM THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATO'w
3 ANY GRADING BEYOND ""`IE DENUDED LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS A VIOLATION OF
THE CITY/COUNTY EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE.
4 GRADING MORE THAN CAE ACRE WITHOUT AN APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN IS A
VIOLATION OF THE CITE < OUNTY EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AND IS SUBJECT TO A
FINE. LOCATION OF FILL MAUL MATERIAL MUST BE DISCLOSED TO THE EROSION CONTROL
INSPECTOR AND MUST Fit HAULED TO A PERMITTED SITE
5 ALL PERIMETER DIKES, iWALES, DITCHES, PERIMETER SLOPES AND ALL SLOPES
nNTAL T VERTICAL 3:1 SHALL B
STEEPER THAN 3 HORIr ` O 1 VE ( } E PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR
PERMANENT STABILIZA`'Oal WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY
EVENT WITHIN 7 CALENI"rAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
6, ALL OTHER DISTURBED 0.rREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
STABILIZATION WITH GR° IND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY EVENT
WITHIN 14 CALENDAR D^ SFROM THE LAST LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
7 ADDITIONAL MEASURE "i) CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT MAY BE REQUIRED BY A
REPRESENTATIVE OFT 4; CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
8 SLOPES SHALL BE GRA I,.D NO STEEPER THAN 2:1. FILL SLOPES GREATER
THAN 10' REQUIRE ADE ,,,ATE TERRACING [CLDSM #30,16]
9 A GRADING PLAN MUST ` SUBMITTED FOR ANY LOT GRADING EXCEEDING ONE ACRE
THAT WAS NOT PREVIO.ILaLY APPROVED,
10 CONTRACTOR SHALL ENISURE THAT ANY ON-SITE OVER EXCAVATION AND BURIAL OF
UNSUITABLE SOIL SHAL 3E OUTSIDE OF ANY -PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPES AND
LOCATIONS OF BURIAL RECORDED,
11 ALL LOG BOOK ENTRIES HILL BE ELECTRONICALLY SENT TO THE AREA INSPECTOR.
SEAL
t r
tt unIf
t
t l t t r t
d� r
F � <
DISTURBED AREA - ACRES
5 .e
+b �t v
CORPORATE
SEAL
0*1
w
4
r c
`twat t11ty
t Int..
All ' ' \
�a /
`°
x a\
t,
� m
1
�+ n
q,
Yu
a
Tax
PROJECT
LD
SHARONTOWERS
1
r
e
[
F
'1
<y
d
e
- '
PRESBYTERIAN HOME AT
I
P
`I
CHARLOTTE
i
t®p
®
I
5100 SHARON ROAD
j, pp
�.1
x
t
e 2 0 7
LANDOESIGN PSOJ
703
1018289
8289
I
7
S r 2
0
REVISION ISSUANCE
T
NO. <
DESCRIPTION
DATE
1
PER CITY REVIEW
01.29.19
LEGEND*
ees2'
IS S
ca
„n. • w
<°~IT N
S .CTI_- ENTRANCE
t ,...
. Ike,TS OF DISTURBANCE
r �
TEMP. DIVERSION DIITCH TD-
—
PALET PROTECTION
El
BOOB CHECK DAM4,
—
!1
CONSTRUCTION FENCE
i
ser, 6
SILT FENCE.
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
-
TEMP. NORM PIPE: M.W "OWN comm *00* "'""
CHECKED BY:
BASIN BAFFLES
SCALE NORTH
DRAINAGE AREAno ma MW am oft
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUF
VERT: N/A
NQRZ..
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUF'.
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR 0
0 20' 40' 80'
SHEET TITLE
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
EROSION CONTROL -STAGE 2
SHEET NUMBER
2".
ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE: 30" X 42"