20190440 Ver 1_401 Application_20190405

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions WEPTWetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
SAW — 2018 - 01790 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: The Hills
2. Work Type: Private ❑1 Institutional ❑
Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
PCN for a residential development
4. Property Owner/ Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Bowman Development Group
5. Agent/ Consultant [PCN Form A5 —or ORM Consultant ID Number]: Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC / WEPG
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.4031 N/ -80.7988W - Intersection of Asbury Chapel Rd & Autumncrest Rd, Charlotte, NC
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 2103104, 2103138, 2103107, 2103108, 2103132
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Huntersville
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: South Prong Clark Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 03040105 - Rocky
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑V Section 10 & 404 ❑
Regulatory Action Type:
❑✓
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit # 18, 29
❑ Regional General Permit #
❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ Pre -Application Request
❑ Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
April 5, 2019
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Alan Johnson
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Moorseville, NC 28115
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
Wetlands & Storm Water Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Subject: SAW -2018-01790; Pre -Construction Notification for NWPs 18 & 29 for The Hills
Site, Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Ms. Higgins and Messrs. Shaeffer, Johnson, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for a Nationwide Permits # 18 & 29 for the approximate 61.9 -acre site
known as The Hills site located southeast of the intersection of Asbury Chapel Rd and
Autumncrest Rd in Huntersville, NC. The site is a proposed residential development and consists
of six streams and six wetlands. A preliminary jurisdictional determination was submitted on
September 7, 2018 (SAW -2017-02345) and field -verified by David Shaeffer on October 19,
2018. Please refer to the Jurisdictional Determination section for updated information on onsite
surface waters.
As shown on the attached exhibits, the proposed project will include impacts to two wetlands for
a road crossing, lot fill, and construction of a sand -filter BMP. Overall impacts to site surface
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 5S0
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
len.rindner(rs wetlands-epg.com
www.wetlands-epg.com
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PM 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard 5. Rindner, PLLC.
waters associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection location,
design, location/orientation of the proposed lots, associated parking areas and access routes.
Total permanent impacts proposed are to 0.14 acres of wetland (Wetlands O & Z), including
0.125 ac of impacts due to the road crossings and residential lot fill permittable under NWP #29
and 0.015 ac of fill for a BMP construction permittable under NWP #18.
Efforts of impact minimization were implemented during the design to preserve the existing
channel hydrology and limit adverse effects to existing, onsite natural habitat. Directional boring
is proposed for four required sewer crossings to avoid additional impacts to streams and
wetlands. Roadway crossings were kept to the minimal practical width. Crossing locations are
dictated by sight distance constraints and connectivity to existing infrastructure per City
requirements. Retaining walls are proposed extensively throughout the project to avoid impacts
to the numerous aquatic features on site. A footpath amenity will use footbridges at all stream
and wetland crossings to avoid impacts. The applicant has demonstrated substantial avoidance
and minimization efforts in which the all of the 3,393 linear feet of stream channels and 80% of
the 0.7 acres of wetlands onsite will be avoided on the project.
To compensate for the anticipated permanent impacts, the applicant is proposing payment into
NCDMS at a 2:1 ratio for 0.14 acres of riparian wetland. Please see the North Carolina
Assessment Method (NCWAM) form attached for further details.
Also enclosed is a copy of our Threatened/Endangered Species Evaluation for the site. No listed
species were identified within the project area and we believe that there will be no effect on
listed species or their critical habitat as designated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. Please refer to the Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation Section for additional
details on the terrestrial species evaluation. Thank you for your consideration and please contact
me if you have any questions, [phone] or email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Daniel Kuefler
Environmental Scientist
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 5S0
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
len.rindner(a wetlands-epg.com
www.wetlands-epg.com
2
Len Rindner, PWS
Principal
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Permit Application

d`�oF V4 rEq<
0 vflllll::� Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29.18 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
NX 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes NX No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
X❑ Yes ❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
The Hills
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Huntersville
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
The Hills Bowman LLC - parcel map attached
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
07906-427, 19570-811, 09888-711, 09793-047, 03708-336
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Robert Bowman - Hills Bowman LLC c/o Bowman Development Group
3d.
Street address:
13815 Cinnabar Place
3e.
City, state, zip:
Huntersville, NC, 28078
3f.
Telephone no.:
704-875-9704 x101
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: Developer
4b.
Name:
Robert B. Bowman
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Bowman Development Group
4d.
Street address:
13815 Cinnabar Place
4e.
City, state, zip:
Huntersville, NC, 28078
4f.
Telephone no.:
704-875-9704 x101
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Daniel Kuefler
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC - Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
5c.
Street address:
10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28227
5e.
Telephone no.:
336-554-2728
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
02103104, 02103138, 02103108, 02103107, 02103132
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.4031 Longitude: -80.7988
1 c.
Property size:
61.85 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
South Prong Clark Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
03040105- Rocky
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site contains multiple residential homes and outbuildings, is mostly covered with successional woods and pine stands, and is disturbed
throughout. General land use in the vicinity is a mixture of fallow fields, undeveloped land, residential and commercial developments.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.7
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 3,393
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project consists of two road crossings, grading, fill & BMPs for a residential development.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Excavation and grading of the site will use standard equipment - excavator, dump trucks, track hoe, etc.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases in the past?
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: PJD Request submitted 09/07/18 SAW -2018-01790.
q
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
0 Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Nic Nelson
Agency/Consultant Company: WEPG
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination request was submitted on 09/07/18 (SAW -2018-01790) and field -verified by David Shaeffer (USACE) on
10/19/18. Updated PJD materials have been included with this submission.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes 0 No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑ Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.08
W2 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.045
W3 P
BMP
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.015
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.14
2h. Comments:
0.08 ac of impacts to Wetland O and 0.045 ac of impacts to Wetland Z will be due to road crossings and residential lots permittable under NWP 29.
0.015 ac of impacts to Wetland Z will be due to grading / fill associated with BMP construction permittable under NWP 18.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 -
Choose one
-
S2 -
Choose one
-
S3 -
Choose one
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Due to the location of the on site streams and wetlands, opportunities to avoid these areas were limited. Impacts to site surface waters associated with
the proposed development were limited through site selection location, design, location/orientation of the proposed lots and access routes. The road
crossing locations are dictated by sight distance constraints and connectivity to existing infrastucture per City requirements.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize impacts to onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances.
Retaining walls are used extensively throughout the project to avoid impacts to wetlands. Road crossings have been kept as narrow as possible
through the use of retaining walls and handrails. Directional boring is proposed at all (four) sewer crossings to eliminate the need for temporary
impacts.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑X Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑X Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑X Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.14 acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments: A 2:1 ratio is proposed for the wetland impacts
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes X❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
24.9%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
Storm
water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has
not yet been submitted to Mecklenburg
County but will be designed to meet their criteria.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Mecklenburg County
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Mecklenburg County
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
❑X No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
F1 Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
E] Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater
generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via sewer lines. All wetland and stream sewerline
crossings will
use
trenchless methods / directional boring.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A threatened/Endangered species assessment was conducted in which no Federally listed, protected species were identified. Habitat does exist for
the Northern Long Eared Bat but the project is except as noted in the included T&E report.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
No essential fish habitat in this region.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
SHPO's website: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
http://polaris3g.mecklenburgcountync.gov ; www.fema.gov
Digitally signed by Daniel Kuefler
Daniel DN: cn=Daniel Kuefler, o=WEPG,
ou,
email=daniel.kuefler@wetlands-
Daniel Kuefler
Kuefler epg.com, c=uS
03-21-2019
Date: 2019.03.21 16:17:59 -04'00'
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.
Page 10 of 10

Agent Authorization Letter
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic
resource (i.e. stream/wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting. The
undersigned, who are either registered property owners or legally authorized to conduct due
diligence activities on the property as identified below, do hereby authorize associates of
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of applicable
permit(s) and/or certification(s).
Project/Site Name: Asbury Chapel - The Hills
Property Address: 73.8 Acres - Asbury Chapel Road
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 01938101; 01938106; 01918142; 01938105; 02103107; 02103138
Select one: I am an interesteduyer eller
Name: I folarrve A6 . 60,,94r9W
Company: #,r,4 -:S,
�b r✓�"'��
Mailing in Address: 'U`'� v7
VV
Telephone Number: ?o . ��+ g. � - � l0,
Electronic Mail Address: h-1Yorr /6 o vmrq•✓
Property
Buyer` /Other*
* The Interested Buyer/Other acknow7elges that an agreement and/or formal contract to purchase and/or conduct
due diligence activities exists between the current property owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases
where the property is not owned by the signatory.
www
Chad._,..
Charlotte Oftce:
..:_. ..:. w
.etlar�ds-e:....:...... ,.-.._.....
Charl" Pg.com .._ . .. .............. .. .Asheville Qftice:
Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. i
Pm -R
a 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, 14C 28805
[phone]
[e-mail]

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Robert Bowman
Bowman Development Group
13815 Cinnabar Place
Huntersville, NC 28078
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 4, 2019
Expiration of Acceptance: 9/4/2019
Project: The Hills 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/401 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 Impact Location Impact type Impact Quantity
(8 -digit HUC
Yadkin 03040105 Riparian Wetland 0.14
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 and
15A NCAC 02B.0295 as applicable. 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: Daniel Kuefler, agent
Sincerely,
Ja e . B Stanfill
As Management Supervisor
North Carolina Department of riivironmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1651 Mail Servic a Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.7078976

N
cd
N
Q
rd
►u
Maps/Plans

FIGURE NO.
1
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
WATOFORl7 ON TF,IF ROD
4�rtf
- �ABARRUS
Cl7OSSM
�.
�17.
Huf ktetsvill2
SITE
MfG78A.'dD CUD'
C}
OL
WATOFORl7 ON TF,IF ROD
4�rtf
- �ABARRUS
Cl7OSSM
�.
Huf ktetsvill2
SITE
MfG78A.'dD CUD'
r •i��7 a.
Rd
_r__
R�d4e
rbud[1RN
w
L' 01
4545
4 Y
-`46 A Nfr. Ginnirs Flu
THE HILLS
Mecklenburg Co., INC
VICINITY MAP
-WATERS OF THE U.S.-
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDEQ VERIFICATION
i. Rd
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE:
1/17/17

FIGURE NO. I I THE HILLS I Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg Co., NC I NRN I LSR
USGS MAP I DATE:
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 1/17/17
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDEQ VERIFICATION

KV.
L
CeD 2
aE
kE
ver k D
> ,kE
M0
1 �
�a `eke
FIGURE •
. TAE AILLS
OWN • Mecklenburg
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC. PUBLISHED SOILS
-WATERS OF THE U.S.-
[e-mail] EXISTING CONDITIONS
[phone] + TO NCDEQ VERIFICATION
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE:
1/17/17 /
PROJECT BOUNDARY
Yw k
ko
STUDY LIMITS
ME
INC
pp
+�
YY F-0
V k
W
N
mo
WkE
Wk
Map Unit Symbrri
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 6
2.1
3.4%
percent slopes
MO
Monacan loam, 6 to 2 pffraent
2.4
3.9°%
slopes, frequently ttaoded
WkB
Wilkes loam. 4 to 8 percent
T.8
12.9°x5
slopes
26.2°%
WkD
Wilkes loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes
Wilkes loam, 15 to 26 percent
61.13%
IWkE
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
54.7
104.0°
FIGURE •
. TAE AILLS
OWN • Mecklenburg
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC. PUBLISHED SOILS
-WATERS OF THE U.S.-
[e-mail] EXISTING CONDITIONS
[phone] + TO NCDEQ VERIFICATION
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
NRN LSR
DATE:
1/17/17 /

FIGURE NO.
5
THE HILLS Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg Co., NC DCK LSR
DATE:
INKS SOILS MAP
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 8/28/18
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO NCDEQ VERIFICATION
Map Unit Sym bol
Map Unit Narne
Acres in AOI
Percent M A01
EnB
Enan sandy loam,.2 to 8
percent slopes
2.1
3A%
m()
Monacan loam, D to 2 percent
slaps, frequently flooded
2.4
19%
WkE
Wilkes loam, 4 10 :9 percera
slopes
S
12.9%
282%
51.6%
WkD
Wilkes loam, 5 to 15 percent
slopes
WkE
WkIkes IDam, 15 to 25 percent
Slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
C..0 ?
FIGURE NO.
5
THE HILLS Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg Co., NC DCK LSR
DATE:
INKS SOILS MAP
-WATERS OF THE U.S.- 8/28/18
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO NCDEQ VERIFICATION

Sheet Index:
0.0 - Sheet Index
P�..
0.1 -Vicinity Map
1.0 - Boundary / Existing Conditions (250 scale)
2.OA - Site Layout (250 scale)
6. -.-
2.013 - Stormwater Overview (250 scale)
2.1 - Site Plan (40 scale)
2.2 - Site Plan (40 scale)
2.3 - Site Plan (60 scale)
3.0 - Wetlands Culvert Profiles
4.0 - Wetlands O Culvert Cross Section
Q
Z
0
z�
oU
T
>7-
>>=z
zoom
v5uJ �
JJ �MJn
7 _
=LLQ
z
z
L
SHEET
INDEX
Figure 7

HUNTERs�l1�1-E
SOUTH PRONG CREEK
O �v
STE
SBURY D
HUS
CIO
�X/
CSP
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 8
VICINITY
MAP
Z
zc)
OU
_>>= a
d w
Qt
�S
'LL.J
JJ �MJn
-
_>
LLJ
z
z
_
VICINITY
MAP

LEGEND:
GRAPHIC SCALE
250 0 125 250 500
Figure 9
PERENNIAL STREAM "R"
NOIMPACT
33 LF
\
WETLANDS
25,431 SQ FT/0.58 AC.
1
3,355
SQ FT/0.08 AC. IMPACT
\
/)
(SEE SHEET 2.0)
PERENNIAL STREAM "Q"
I ,fll
NOIMPACT
z
257 LF
NOIMPACT
J
O
I
.xm,xuIDscs* �. ,
WETLANDS "S"
952SQ FT / 0.022 AC .0 w.eam9to. noxa
NOIMPACT nc«o. a."'xc xeon
WETLANDS "T"
+� I 506 SO FT / 0.012 AC rnw.. tP.mm,
j� OIMPACT
I I
nx rer cw,.wPxlm
\'M( �- -_ Flim Ilan«IP-tt8t
\1,
L I
\
Q
I ,fll
WETLANDS V'
176 SQ FT / 0.004 AC
z
\
NOIMPACT
J
O
INTERMITTENT STREAM "U"
\
NO IMPACT
\
157 LF
'•,'� I
O
I
I
�J
n
p�
Oxy
WETLANDS "W"
0.005 AC
L >
Ui
/p' :
229 SQ FT/
NO IMPACT
=�
z
\
WETLANDS -X"
539 SQ FT / 0.012 AC
\I \ 1,
NOIMPACT
Z
L PERENNIAL STREAM "N"
PERENNIAL STREAM"A" NOIMPACT
NOIMPACT 2,338 LF
377 LF
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
1.0

1' A11T111QKR�' �.
Axce
WETLANDS "0"
25,431 SO FT/0.58 AC.
3,355 SO FT/0.08 AC. PERMANENT IMPACT
SEE SHEET 2.1
OVERALL PERCENT PERCENT IMPERVIOUS
FOR THIS PROJECT = 24.85%
INTERMITTENT STREAM "B"
231 LF
NO IMPACT
(SEE SHEET 2.3)
WETLANDS "Z"
2,547 SO FT/0.06 AC.
2,478 SO FT/0.06 AC. PERMANENT IMPACT
(SEE SHEET 2.3) '
vvv vvv vvvvv�w ��
�� � IA SAA �AAVAA� I AAV �
I
pc—
'\ 31 32 93 34
30
Figure 10
WETLANDS "0"
SEWER CROSSING BY DIRECTIONAL BORING
28
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE - NO IMPACT
SEE SHEET 2.1
f
PERENNIAL STREAM"N"
ws PVMw4
PLLC
SEWER CROSSING BY DIRECTIONAL BORING
LEGEND:
\\\ \\\ \\� \\\�\ \\\\ \
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE - NO IMPACT
_ II
------------I
""�m°tlm"9w zem�
aav cwnm�w•
— — — rPowsm wan w rmv
—___ rnaoow ivr uxs
-
SEE SHEET 2.1
_ v.n
O
IIII,
IIIII/II I \ \1 \ 1
X11\\\�
/
� 23 1 _
nen.w
�\�\\�..//11 \\\\�
ENLARGEMENT
T
SHEET 2.1
97.
-
PERENNIAL
PERENNIAL ST
SEWER CROSSING- IR tTTONAL BORING
GRAPHIC SCALE
�'Av
21 zo
LAYOUT
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT -BRIDGE --No IMPACT
��1=--- '�� ENLARGEMENT
250 0 125 250 500
SEE SHEET 2.1 -
Ne1 fp Dan
Lwow 1 P—n9t
2.OA
WETLANDS "S"
\'
SEWER CROSSING BY DIRECTIONAL BORING
�1 �\
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE - NO IMPACT
�\
SEE SHEET 2.1
L
Z
\v
PERENNIAL STREAM "N"
—j
�
601
PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE - NO IMPACT
Z O
'
SEE SHEET 2.2
QQ
U
ENLARGEMENT
SHEET 2.2r)Zz
4
z
s
L
Figure 10
28
12 11
27
LEGEND:
\\\ \\\ \\� \\\�\ \\\\ \
_ II
------------I
aav cwnm�w•
— — — rPowsm wan w rmv
—___ rnaoow ivr uxs
�
�
Il 1 I
I\/IS
24 \
� _
' -
____
_ v.n
O
IIII,
IIIII/II I \ \1 \ 1
X11\\\�
/
� 23 1 _
nen.w
�\�\\�..//11 \\\\�
T
SITE
GRAPHIC SCALE
�'Av
21 zo
LAYOUT
��1=--- '�� ENLARGEMENT
250 0 125 250 500
`
--- ----- SHEET 2.3
2.OA
Figure 10

HD.
_1'_6!N'-IRMPNCE - _ - - - _ _ _
_ as Pvmwa PLLc
-'-- Txa Weaain Ian Raae
SA ROPOTSED ER BM 45 ��9p
JJ 1 \ mnn.a. xt x009
Y o p
L Q�
44
46
eaNv
�m€re
p0f y� v-� �• 4743 48
�\
\ F
3
r/ 41r\
Z
40
38
PROPOSED BMP
37 / 7 \ (SAND FILTER SF-4)
--
ss
Z� _
- /
35 II-1
j 31 32 33 34 --' ---
PROPOSED BMP s
(SAND FILTER SF-1) 30 / / Z
/ \ _
25 29
10
14 '�
1915
III
28
16
r�.rsR
LEGEND: 25
rnooasm wary _ 24 j . 17 \ ' 'ro
22 r i PROPOSED BMP
(SAND FILTER SF-2)
1 STORMWATER
�\ zl 2D OVERVIEW
GRAPHIC SCALE
250 0 125 250 500 R
2.OB
Figure 11

WETLANDS "O" ROAD CROSSING IMPACT AVOIDANCE
AND MINIMIZATION SUMMARY:
DUE TO EXISTING TOPO AND SIGHT DISTANCE
CONSTRAINTS AT AUTUMNCREST ROAD, THE EXISTING I qO , rr�s�- '�>^�`• "�
ROCK OUT CROP AREA, AND THE NEED FOR A SECOND 1
ACCESS POINT TO THE SUBDIVISION (OVER 25 LOTS), I �a
ROWAN HILL DRIVE MUST CROSS THE WETLANDS AT THIS
LOCATION. 4 f f I swwa�
HOWEVER, WE ARE ABLE TO MINIMIZE THIS IMPACT WITH
THE HELP OF RETAINING WALLS AND HANDRAILS PLACEDI "° "'°" Ax.
AS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED CROSSING AS THE TOWN OF o
HUNTERSVILLE WILL ALLOW.
f
WETLANDS "O"
SEWER CROSSING BY DIRECTIONAL BORING 8 / �• ,(�
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE- NO IMPACT
0 f/ `•� A)
PERENNIAL STREAM "N'. `/ `` ss// I •�• ���
SEWER CROSSING BY DIRECTIONAL BORING\ ` I
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE -NO IMPACT �' \ �( l/-'J
WETLANDS 0.
3,355 SF/0.08 AC.(RIP RAP INCLUDED IN / '•� 1 1 `O
TOTAL) PERMANENT IMPACT '///f,I('
(SEE SHEET 3.0 FOR CULVERT PROFILE 2 3 rc$
AND 4.0 FOR CULVERT SECTION) (� \ \
WETLAND "O" IMPACTS DUE TO: ` 1 1 �z oo a
-FILL ASSOCIATED WITH ROAD CROSSING
_��_
PERENNIAL STREAM O - NO IMPACT
PERENNIAL STREAM "N" \
SEWER CROSSING BY DIRECTIONAL BORING ® \ \ z
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE -NO IMPACTZ3Z
CB SAND FES-7 vo-z-
JETLANDS
\"S" vo,
SEWER CROSSING BY DIRECTIONAL BORING T T �j
AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE- NO IMPACT b j FIL TER
R `
R�
SF-3
OUT CRS
LEGEND:
AREAzmmm\ \�
�� . i \ \
-76 \\ SITE
CB LAYOUT
GRAPHIC SCALE
40-SCALE
40 0 20 40 8c 18 1
/� - ; ► 2.1
Figure 12

PERENNIAL STREAM "N"
PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE - NO IMPACT
PEDESTRIAN —
TRAIL
WETLANDS 'T"
NO IMPACT
LEGEND: —
o .
GRAPHIC SCALE
40 0 20 40 80
Figure 13
a
0
\�\ \ / iYm Dcmw i P-1101
->o
Q
Z
O
SITE
F LAYOUT
40 -SCALE
2.2

00
*TERMITTENT STREAM "B"
231 LF
NO IMPACT
(SEE SHEET 3.1 FOR CULVERT PROFILE)
i
1
WETLANDS "Z" BMP IMPACT AVOIDANCE
�4 O
2,547 SO FT/0.06 AC.
AND MINIMIZATION SUMMARY:
Lo
(SEE SHEET 3.1 FOR CULVERT PROFILE)
9
WETLANQ'Z" IMPACTS DUE TO:
I
-BMP (INCLUDING GRADING OF BMP) - O.U15 AC - -
DUE TO THE EXISTING DRAINAGE DIVIDES WITH THIS SITE
AND THE NEED TO PRESERVE THE AREA BEHIND LOTS 26 &
/'
b
27 FOR TREE SAVE, SAND FILTER SF -1 NEEDS TO BE
b
LOCATED AT THIS LOW POINT TO TREAT AND DETAIN
POST -DEVELOPED RUNOFF.
1 \
HOWEVER, WE WIILL BE RE-ROUTING THIS WETLANDS
LEGEND
DRAINAGE FEATURE AROUND SF -1 IN A GRASSED LINED
CHANNEL TO DROP INLET DDI -2. THIS GRASSED LINED
/
CHANNEL SHALL BE KEPT MAINTAINED AND CLEARED OF
�L
DEBRIS BY THE HOA.
PEDESTRIA
TRAIL(TYPJ
WETLANDS "Z" FILL ASSOCIATED WITH LOT GRADING AND
ROAD CROSSING IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
SUMMARY:
I \
DUE TO EXISTING TORO AND SIGHT DISTANCE
Nn
CONSTRAINTS AT ASBURY CHAPEL ROAD AND THE NEED
I
FOR A SECOND ACCESS POINT TO THE SUBDIVISION (OVER
25 LOTS), MOONLIGHT MIST ROAD MUST CROSS THE
WETLANDS AT THIS LOCATION. LOT 251S NEEDED TO
,
SUPPORT THE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
DEVELOPMENT.
I
HOWEVER, WE ARE ABLE TO MINIMIZE THIS IMPACT WITH
THE HELP OF RETAINING WALLS AND HANDRAILS PLACED
AS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED CROSSING AS THE TOWN OF
N
HUNTERSVILLE WILL ALLOW.
)� I
00
*TERMITTENT STREAM "B"
231 LF
NO IMPACT
(SEE SHEET 3.1 FOR CULVERT PROFILE)
i
GRAPHIC SCALE
60 0 30 60 120
Figure 14
SAND
FILTER
SF -1
Ln
o NATURAL
OPEN SPACE
0 3.13 AC
25
.
as
24
/
1
WETLANDS "Z"
I I
2,547 SO FT/0.06 AC.
2,478 SO FT/0.06 AC. TOTAL PERMANENT IMPACT
(SEE SHEET 3.1 FOR CULVERT PROFILE)
9
WETLANQ'Z" IMPACTS DUE TO:
vo
\
-BMP (INCLUDING GRADING OF BMP) - O.U15 AC - -
I t5
-FILL ASSOCIATED WITH LOT GRADING= 0.015 AC.
� �30
-FILL ASSOCIATED WITH ROAD CROSSING= 0.03 AC -.4—
Z b
'oz '.Mu
R..1r
LEGEND
N
N
C - 9
��
°
\
PEDESTRIA
TRAIL(TYPJ
GRAPHIC SCALE
60 0 30 60 120
Figure 14
SAND
FILTER
SF -1
Ln
o NATURAL
OPEN SPACE
0 3.13 AC
25
.
as
24
/
Z
Oj
jm
E_
� �30
'oz '.Mu
JJ -
n
C - 9
��
°
c
L
SITE
LAYOUT
60 -SCALE
2.3

PROPOSED
6
48" RCP, CLASS III
LENGTH = 41.0'
SLOPE = 1.4%
EXISTING
PIPE TO BE BURIED 1 -FT
MINIMUM INTO EXISTING-- RIM ELE
CREEK BED INLET INV. ELI
OUTLET INV. ELI
FES
0.0% SLOPE
FES
0.0% SLOPE
DATUM ELEV
650 0+00 0+50
PROP 60" RCP, CLASS
481,
I \ /lam^ p LENGTH = 60
SLOPE = 0.0,
(WETLAND 11011)
HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 40 FEET
40 0 20 40 80
VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 4 FEET
4 0 2 4 8
Figure 15
O.0
750
PROPOSED
RADE
PROP DD -12
RIM ELEV. = 741.80
OUTLET
INV. ELEV. = 736.80
740
EXISTING
GRADE
PROP JB -1
V. = 743.00
V. = 726.21
V. = 726.01
/
730
Iv
61
/PROP
RCP, CLASS IV
L
NGTH = 123.58
LOPE = 8.57%
FES1
o SLOPE
M ELEV
750
40
730
DATU DATUM ELEV
720 0+00 1+00 720
DDI -2 TO FES -1 (WETLAND 11211)
. oma...
WETLANDS
CULVERT
PROFILES
3.0

WING EXISTING GRADE
680 WALL 680
nc,,,w a, xc :eon
WING
670 670 WALL
660 660
650
650
0+00 0+25 0+50
0+75 1+00
UPSTREAM HEADWALL SIZE = I RCP
II
CLASS III
PIPE TO BE BURIED
1 -FT MINIMUM INTO
LENGTH = 41.00'
EXISTING CREEK BED
INV IN = 652.62'
INV OUT = 652.05'
Q
SLOPE = 1.4%
Z
J
ZLe
0<
WINGEXISTING
GRADE
WING
WALL
680 WALL
68040d�
670
670
JJm>n
W_
660
660
u
f—
___
Z
650
650
=
0+00 0+25 0+501+00
%07PIPETO
1+25
SIZE = 48" RCP
DOWNSTREAM HEADWALL
BE BURIED
CLASS III
1 -FT MINIMUM INTO
LENGTH = 41.00'
EXISTING CREEK BED
INV IN = 652.62'
INV OUT = 652.05'
SLOPE = 1.4%
oWh_
r -
WETLANDS
HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 20 FEET 1 INCH = 2 FEET CCROSST
20 0 10 20 40 2 0 1 2 4 SECTION
4.0
Figure 16

C
O
.4-J
c�
.E
v
v
w
.Jurisdictional
Determination Information

LEGEND WETL WETLAND 0 + '- ***USACE Verification 10/19/18***
FORM O 0.60 ac
Photo Location &
Direction
* Nork-Jurisdictional
GuIIVorSwale �ss ,. r
Stream Channel
10
Wetland PERENNIAL STREAM R
-33 If
5
PERENNIAL 3
STREAM Q
-201 If WETLAND S
- 0.022 ac
UPLAND
FORM DPI
WETLAND T
-0.012 ac
9
INTERMITTENT
STREAM B INTERMITTENT
250 If
STREAM U
- -276 If
- 1
2
UPLAND
FORM DP2WETLAND V
6 -
STREAM 12 0.004 ac
FORM B
STREAM
FORM A
g WETLAND
FORM Z
WETLAND Z
-0.05 ac
000121102s UllGd Mlda
FIGURE NO.
17
PERENNIAL j I
STREAM A WETLAND X
-377 r - 0.005 ac
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
WETLAND W
- 0.005 ac
PERENNIAL STREAM N
- 2,338 If =�='
r_
THE HILLS Drawn By: Reviewed By:
Mecklenburg Co., NC NRN LSR
DELINEATION MAP
-WATERS OF THE U.S.-
EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
SUBJECT TO USACE/NCDEQ VERIFICATION
DATE:
2/24/17
Updated 10/19/2018

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date: 2/10/17 I Evaluator: I NRN/HAC
Easting:
-80.8027
Project: Asbury Chapel - The Hills: Intermittent Stream B
Northing:
35.4009
Total Points:
Continuity of channel bed and bank
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
18.5
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
3
A.
Geomorphology
Absent Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a.
Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1
2.
Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3.
In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
1
4.
Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5.
Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6.
Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7.
Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8.
Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9.
Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomor hology
Subtotal
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
1
13. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2 3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1 1.5
1
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No =
0
Yes = 3
0
0
0.5
1
Hydrology Subtotal
4.0
C. Biology
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20.
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23.
Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0.75, OBL= 1.5, Other= 0
0
Biology
Subtotal
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins.
(version 4.11)

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Date: 2/10/17 1 Evaluator: I NRN/HAC
Easting:
-80.7988
Project: I Asbury Chapel - The Hills: Perennial Stream A
Northing:
35.3996
Total Points:
Continuity of channel bed and bank
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
30.5
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
3
A.
Geomorphology
Absent Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a.
Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2.
Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3.
In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4.
Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5.
Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6.
Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7.
Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8.
Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9.
Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology
Subtotal
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hydrology
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No =
0
Yes =
3
3
Crayfish
0
0.5
Hydrology Subtotal =
10.5
C. Biology
18.
Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19.
Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20.
Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22.
Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23.
Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24.
Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25.
Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26.
Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0.75, OBL= 1.5, Other= 0
0
Biology
Subtotal
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual.
Notes:
Adapted from NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins.
(version 4.11)

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Asbury Chapel City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Applicant/Owner: Bowman Development Group
State: NC
Investigator(s): HAC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.4049 Long: -80.7997
Soil Map Unit Name: WkE: Wilkes loam
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
Sampling Date: 2/24/17
_ Sampling Point: Upland DP1
_ Slope (%): 15 - 25
Datum:
NWI classification:
No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes F No =
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No =✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No ✓0
Remarks:
Upland Data Point 1 was taken approximately 30' south of Wetland O.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
=Surface Water (Al) =True Aquatic Plants (1314)
=Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
=High Water Table (A2) =Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
=Drainage Patterns (1310)
=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 (B2) =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 (B4) =Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron Deposits (135)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
=Shallow Aquitard (D3)
=Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic Fauna (B13)
=FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes= No= Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes= No �✓
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
30 Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1 Quercus rubra 30 Y FACU
2 Fagus sylvatica 25 Y NI
3 Acer rubrum 15 Y FAC
6.
7.
15 70 = Total Cover
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
7
15
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Elaeagnus angustifolia
3.
4.
rl
5
Sampling Point: Upland DP1
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 29% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
= Total Cover
Q 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
15 Y FACU 02 - Dominance Test is >50%
03 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
15 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Polystichum acrostichoides 25 Y FACU
2 Hexastylis arifolia 15 Y FAC
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
30 Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Lonicera japonica 25 Y FAC
2.
3.
4 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5. Present? Yes= No �✓
25 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland DP1
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) % Tvpe' Loc
Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 2/2 100
sandy loam
4-20 10YR 5/3 100
silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced
Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
=Histosol (Al)
=Dark Surface (S7)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) =Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Redox Dark Surface (F6)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
=Redox Depressions (F8)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
=Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth
Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No E
(inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Asbury Chapel City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Applicant/Owner: Bowman Development Group State: NC
Investigator(s): NRN Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.4049 Long: -80.7997
Sampling Date: 2/24/17
_ Sampling Point: Wetland 0
Slope (%): 15 - 25
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: WkE: Wilkes loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes F—l/] 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 = Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No = within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No =
Remarks:
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)
F,–(]Surface Water (Al)
=True Aquatic Plants (1314)
=Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
=High Water Table (A2)
=Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
=Drainage Patterns (1310)
=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 (B2)
=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 (B4)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
=Iron Deposits (135)
=Geomorphic Position (D2)
=Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
=Shallow Aquitard (D3)
=Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
=Microtopographic Relief (D4)
=Aquatic Fauna (B13)
=FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches): Surface
Saturation Present? Yes=
No= Depth (inches): Surface
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes F7_1 No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: `Netiand o
30
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
= Total Cover
= 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
25
Y FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
7
(A)
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
20
Y FAC
3.
4
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Total Number of Dominant
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3 Acer rubrum
20
Y FAC
Species Across All Strata:
8
(B)
4 Carpinus caroliniana
10
N FAC
1 Microstegium vimineum
45 Y FAC
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2 Boehmeria cylindrica 25 Y FACW
3.
Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
5•
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
88%
(A/B)
6.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
15
75
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
10.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11.
OBL species
x 1 =
12.
1.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
30
FACW species
x 2 =
2.
)
FAC species
x 3 =
3.
15 Y FAC
FACU species
x 4 =
4.
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 5 =
(A)
(B)
5.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
15
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
= Total Cover
= 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 Elaeagnus angustifolia
10 Y FACU
02 - Dominance Test is >50%
2.
03 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
04 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3.
4
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
6.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
7.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
10 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Microstegium vimineum
45 Y FAC
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2 Boehmeria cylindrica 25 Y FACW
3.
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
5.
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
9
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
11.
ft (1 m) in height.
12.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
30
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Lonicera japonica
25 Y FAC
2 Toxicodendron radicans
15 Y FAC
3.
4
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
Present? Yes= No
40 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Wetland O
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' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 5/1 65
7.5YR 4/4 35 MS M
sandy loam
4-20 10YR 5/1 65
7.5YR 4/4 35 MS M
loamy sand
'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 Soils3:
=Histosol (Al)
=Dark Surface (S7)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
=Histic Epipedon (A2)
=Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) =Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
=Black Histic (A3)
=Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
=Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
=Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
=Stratified Layers (A5)
=Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
=2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
=Redox Dark Surface (F6)
=Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
=Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
=Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
=Other (Explain in Remarks)
=Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
=Redox Depressions (F8)
=Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
=Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
=Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
=Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
=Sandy Redox (S5)
=Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
=Stripped Matrix (S6)
=Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Photo Log

INTERMITTENT STREAM B - PHOTO I
INTERMITTENT STREAM U - PHOTO 2
THE HILLS
Mecklenburg Co., NC — 2/10/17, 2/24/17
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard 5_ Rindner, PLLG.

r,
-r fid.' ti:`�1 cd•.v. ' � ��f .��

MARGINAL INTERMITTENT STREAM —
Subject to NCDEQ Verification — PHOTO 7
NON -JURISDICTIONAL SWALE — PHOTO 8
THE HILLS
Mecklenburg Co., NC — 2/10/17, 2/24/17
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard 5_ Rindner, PLLG.

k

«� .... —y"
7M
. _ .:. .stir"•S d�c^'�.��+, '� � .. � ::SST
�7
w
NON -JURISDICTIONAL SWALE - PHOTO 11
WE PG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
NON -JURISDICTIONAL SWALE - PHOTO 12
THE HILLS
Mecklenburg Co., NC — 2/10/17, 2/24/17
Leonard 5- Rindner. PLLG.

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Accompanies user manual version 5.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
The Hills
Date of Evaluation
10/19/18
Applicant/Owner Name
Bowman Development Group
Wetland Site Name
Wetland Z
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
DCK - WEPG
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
South Prong Clark Ck
River Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
03040105
County
Mecklenburg
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
® Yes ❑ No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.4005, -80.8029
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS
5M
2M
❑A
®A
❑A
> 10% impervious surfaces
❑B
❑B
❑B
Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C
❑C
❑C
>_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D
❑D
❑D
>_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E
®E
®E
>_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F
❑F
7
>_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G
❑G
❑G
Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
®H ®H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
❑A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
®B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑1 From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
®C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option °C.°
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
T
o ❑A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
cc ®B EIB Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
L,
g ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
U.) ❑B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ®B Moderate density shrub layer
®C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
-a ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
❑B ®B Moderate density herb layer
®C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
1; Y
7 MM1�5 h f jC�
4
�' I ' �� � / I � M � Z f k "44. � ! } y. h ��.,,Yh� t y�•A � � , aw'
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
0 Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
WAM assessment area includes section of wetland immediately above Stream B, in vicinity of proposed road crossing. This area has extensive
buffer breaks - one side of wetland nearly abuts residential lots with maintained turf and the other side has a cleared path/trail within 30-50'. Looks
like some thining/cutting has occurred in this area and invasive species (privet) are comment. Shallow geomorphic position - likely flashy flows /
seasonal seeps with occasional inundation.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland Z Date of Assessment
10/19/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
DCK - WEPG
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Condition
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Retention Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

a�
v
Cn
c�
LU
Threatened & Endangered Species
Report

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
For Asbury Chapel — The Hills
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Chw4oft olnw.
10612-0 Prorldence Rd.
PMB S50
Chwioft NC 26277
V" 904-2277
[e-mail]
By: Lisa R. Gaffney
February 20, 2017
www.wedands-W&com
A*wAlle 0I111ca
1070 Tunnel Rd., Md& I
Sulu 10, PMB 263
AWwAI@, NC 76805
(628 706-7059
amanda.

Asbury Chapel —The Hills —Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The Asbury Chapel — The Hills property (73.81 acres) is located just east and
west of Asbury Chapel Road, and just south of Autumn Crest Road in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. It can be found on the Cornelius, NC
USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.3990 N, longitude is 80.8061
W. The site contains multiple residential homes and outbuildings, is mostly
covered with successional woods and pine stands, and is disturbed throughout.
The topography is gently to moderately sloping with the elevation ranging from
650 to 770 ft. (Figure 1).
Figure 1:
FI
I SOUTH �RD NG
CIARNCREEN
Sii _
L dfa �... '�`-J ��..� Fief
''� � N�! 6-5ra . t
I
C
NN
PfS]l ECT 900NQA RY
WCATION
ti ] I f r - j �1 SCALE Lat: 35.3990 RN
r 1:24,000 Long: -80.8061 "4V
17 USGS QUAD ACRES HUC: 03040105
1/ J Cornelius, NC 73,81 ROCI(Y
FIGURE NO- AS BU RY CHAPEL — TH E N LLS
A !C r) /_ I Mecklenburg Co., NC
-- - LTS MALP —WAT ERS OF THE US.
Elf STI N G CO N DITI O fay ST UDY
5Ua;ECF TO US4CE VEORCATI GN
Drav n By: Reviewed By:
NRN I LSE
DATE:
1117/17
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rlndner, PLLC.

Asbury Chapel —The Hills —Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.htmi was referenced to
determine the occurrence of Threatened, Endangered and Protected species for
Mecklenburg County North Carolina, the results of which are listed below (Table
1). Maps and aerial photographs were assembled and the site was investigated
during the week beginning January 30, 2017.
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Mecklenburg County
County: Mecklenburg, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on January 30, 2017
Group Name
Clams Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmipona decorata)
Flowering Smooth coneflower (Echinacea
Plants laevi ata
Flowering Schweinitz's sunflower
Plants (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Flowering Michaux's sumac (Rhus
Plants michauxii
Mammals Northern Long -Eared Bat
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Birds Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
Status
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Protected
under the Bald
and Golden
Eagle
Protection Act
Lead Office
Asheville Ecological
Services Field Office
Raleigh Ecological
Services Field Office
Asheville Ecological
Services Field Office
Raleigh Ecological
Services Field Office
Twin Cities Ecological
Services Field Office
Great Lakes -Big Rivers
Region (Region 3)
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rlndner, PLLC.

Asbury Chapel —The Hills —Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Three plant species with federal protection were included in the survey efforts:
• Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), listed as Federally
Endangered, is typically found in open habitats which historically have
been maintained by wildfires and grazing bison and elk herds. Now most
occurrences are limited to roadsides, woodland and field edges, and utility
rights-of-way (ROW).
• Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), listed as Federally
Endangered, is typically found in open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides,
clear cuts, dry limestone bluffs and power line rights-of-way, requiring
abundant sunlight and little competition from other plant species.
• Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii), listed as Federally Endangered,
requires habitat of sandy forests and woodland edges. This species
requires periodic fire as a part of its ecology.
A total of three animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially
occurring in Mecklenburg County:
• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large bodies of
open water such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers, where there are
suitable fish populations and tall trees for nesting and roosting.
• Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally
Endangered, is restricted to cool, clean, well -oxygenated water. Stable,
silt- free stream beds are required for this species. Typically stable areas
occur where the stream banks are well -vegetated with trees and shrubs.
• Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), listed as Federally
Threatened. During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in
colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead
trees. Males and non -reproductive females may also roost in cooler
places, like caves and mines. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in
structures like barns and sheds. Northern long-eared bats spend winter
hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula.
WEPG 4
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rlndner, PLLC.

Asbury Chapel —The Hills —Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
RESULTS:
The site contains multiple residential homes and outbuildings, is mostly covered
with successional woods, and is disturbed throughout. There are houses,
garages, sheds, barns, lawns, flower beds, landscaping, gravel roads and
driveways distributed throughout the property. The residential areas are
landscaped and managed, with Fescue (Festuca sp.) turf grass and small trees
and shrubs, and flower beds and borders. In some areas there are small
overhead power lines connecting to the homes and outbuildings, with transitional
ecotone under the overhead lines and between the roads and woods edges. The
rest of the site is a patchwork of mixed hardwood forested slopes and timbered
uplands planted in Loblolly Pine groves. There are two open water ponds on the
site, and Cane Creek forms part of the property boundary on the northwest
section.
The upland flats and gentle slopes are composed mostly of Loblolly Pine (Pinus
taeda) stands with successional hardwoods mixed within the canopy and
subcanopy, and grades into a hardwood dominated forest on the steeper slopes
and drainages. Some of the largest trees are over 3 ft. in diameter, with the
average diameter at breast height (DBH) at 18", but with a great deal of variation
in DBH overall. Canopy trees include Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda), Shortleaf Pine
(P. echinata), Virginia Pine (P. virginiana), White Oak (Quercus alba), Northern
Red Oak (Q. rubra), Southern Red Oak (Q. falcata), Black Oak (Q. velutina),
Willow Oak (Q. phellos), Post Oak (Q. stellata), Mockernut Hickory (C.
tomentosa), Pignut Hickory (C. glabra), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and
Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), with Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
and Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) occurring on the lowest slopes and
floodplain of Cane Creek. The subcanopy contains Sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), Ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), American Holly (Ilex opaca), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Eastern Red
Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida), Hackberry
(Celtis laevigata), Redbud (Cercis canadensis), Red Mulberry (Morus rubra),
Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Winged Elm (Ulmus alata), and Black Cherry
(Prunus serotina), with Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and River Birch (Betula
nigra) occurring on the lower slopes and floodplain of Cane Creek. The shrub
layer includes Spicebush (Lindera benzoin), Viburnum (Viburnum spp.),
Blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), Paw Paw (Asimina triloba), Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus
umbellate), and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). Vines present are
Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Trumpet Creeper (Campsis
radicans), Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The herb layer is sparse
on the drier uplands and slopes, becoming more prominent on the lower slopes
and drainages, and includes Christmas Fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
Spotted Wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), Dayflower (Commelina sp.),
Bedstraw (Galium sp.), River Oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), and Japanese
Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum).
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rlndner, PLLC.

Asbury Chapel — The Hills —Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
The disturbed open areas, roadsides and PLROW are dominated by shrubs,
vines and herbs that typically occur in this habitat. Woody species present are
small tree saplings of Pines, Sweet -gum and Tulip Poplar, and shrubs of
Blackberry (Rubus sp.), Russian Olive, Chinese Privet, Smooth Sumac (Rhus
glabra), and Groundsel Tree (Baccharis halimifolia). Herbs present are Johnson
Grass (Sorghum halepense), Plume Grass (Erianthus contortus), Sericea
Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Rabbit Tobacco (Gnapthalium obtusifolium),
Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Beggars Ticks (Desmodium sp.), and Thoroughwort
(Eupatorium sp.).
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
• All potential habitats for Schweinitz's Sunflower, Michaux's Sumac and
Smooth Coneflower along the roadside corridors, PLROWs, and woods
edges were closely examined and none of these species were present.
• No Bald Eagles were seen nor were any nesting sites observed.
• Streams on site do not appear to have the habitat characteristics required
to support populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter, and they have not been
reported to occur in the watershed. No mussels were observed during the
survey nor would any be expected on-site.
• Comparing our site location to the USFWS Asheville office's website
(http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB in WNC.html) it
appears that the site meets the "exempt" criteria which requires no further
action under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the northern
long eared bat.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
I recommend further consultation with the project planners and engineers
regarding coordination with USFWS and other federal and state agencies as
needed.
Respectfully submitted,
4'-, # 1*e�l
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
February 10, 2017
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
6
Leonard S. Rlndner, PLLC.

Asbury Chapel —The Hills —Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Curriculum Vitae for:
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist / Botanist
B.S. Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Ms. Gaffney is a classically trained botanist and biologist and has conducted field work
and investigative studies covering thousands of cumulative acres in both North and
South Carolina since 1996, including:
• Cabarrus County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 1997-1998. Organized,
directed, and worked in field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County for the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, collecting field data and writing reports.
• Lincoln County NC Natural Heritage Inventory 2000-2001. Organized, directed,
and worked in field survey of natural areas in Lincoln County for the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, collecting field data and writing reports.
• Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys and Natural Communities
Evaluation for over 40,000 acres in North and South Carolina, 1996 - present.
• Located and identified at least six previously unreported populations of Federally
Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
• Located and identified four previously unreported populations of
Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
• Located a previously unknown population of Federally Endangered Schweinitz's
Sunflower at Redlair Farm in Gaston County, NC. This discovery led (in part) to
the purchase of the site by the State of North Carolina Plant Conservation
Program, now called Redlair Preserve. This population has become a Recovery
Site for the species.
• Participated in numerous Piedmont Prairie restoration projects in Mecklenburg,
Union, Cabarrus and Gaston Counties, North Carolina.
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rlndner, PLLC.