20191120 Ver 1_USACE 2nd Copy PCN_20190821

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW – 201 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1.Project Name [PCN Fm A2a]:
2.Work Type: Private Institutional Government Commercial
3.Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
4.Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
5.Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 – or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
6.Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7.Project Location - Coordinates [PCN Form B1b]:

8.Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]:
9.Project Location – County [PCN Form A2b]:
10.Project Location – Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]:
11.Project Information – Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]:

Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 Section 10 & 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
Unauthorized
Compliance

Revised 20150602
8 1439
Mayes Hall
✔
PCN application for a residential development in Mecklenburg County
Ken Holbrooks - The Bayard Group (Applicant)
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC / WEPG
35.4582 N/-80.8164 W, Mayes Road, Huntersville, NC
00716207; 00716286; 00716206
Mecklenburg
Huntersville
South Prong West Branch Rocky River
03040105
✔
✔29
1

August 20, 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
Subject: SAW-2018-01439; Pre-Construction Notification for NWP #29 for the Mayes Hall
site, Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Ms. Higgins and Messrs. Shaeffer, Johnson, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for Nationwide Permit #29 for the approximate 26-acre site known as the
Mayes Hall site located east of the Barnhardt Road and Mayes Road intersection in Huntersville,
NC. The site is a proposed residential development and consists of four wetlands and two
streams. A preliminary jurisdictional determination was submitted on July 18, 2018 (SAW-
2018-01439) and was field-verified by David Shaeffer (USACE) on September 28, 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 three wetlands
for the installation of a sewer line for the proposed residential development. Overall 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 and the
design/location of stormwater facilities. The total proposed encroachment to site surface waters
is limited to 0.0291 acres of temporary wetland impacts. No permanent wetland or stream
2
impacts are proposed as part of this project. Due to the limited and temporary nature of the
proposed impacts to site surface waters, no mitigation is proposed.
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 Len Rindner, PWS
Environmental Scientist Principal
Permit Application Permit Application
29
Developer
B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
00716207;00716286;00716206
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.4582 Longitude: -80.8164
1 c.
Property size:
26 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
South Prong West Branch Rocky River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
03040105
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is primarily covered with successional mixed hardwood forest and agricultural pasture sloping northe east to South Prong West Branch Rocky
River.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.057
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 550
3d.
The
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
project consists of excavation 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?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: PJD Request submitted 7/18/18 SAW -2018-01439
q
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑x Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): H.caldwell
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 7/18/18 (SAW -2018-01439) and was field verified by David Schaeffer on 9/28/18.
Updates to the JD Request are included in the Jurisdictional Determination Section.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑ 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 T
Excavation
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.0001
W2 T
Excavation
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.003
W3 T
Excavation
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.024
W4 T
Excavation
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.002
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.0291
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
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
1a. 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 completely 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 and the design/location of stormwater facilities.
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.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
51%
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:
Stormwater
on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has
been submitted to Mecklenburg County for
review
and has been 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):
F-1 Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes 0 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?
❑ Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance
with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
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 proposed and existing sewer lines.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A threatened/Endangered species assessment was conducted in which no species were identified. Habitat does exist for the Northern Long Eared Bat
but the project is exempt 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
Heath Caldwell
Digitally sI,nld by Heath Caldwell
Heath Caldwell °s=h ah`°adwel@welts dPeP 9 em,
Date, 2019.08.2011, 30,26.0400
08-20-2019
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

24.3 Acres - Mayes Road, Huntersville NC
00716206; 00716207; 00716286
Maps/Plans Maps/Plans
VICINITY MAP MAYES ROAD, DAVIDSON Mecklenburg County, NC For study purposes only Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification 04/11/18 Prepared for: APPROXIMATE PROJECT BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS +/- 23.7 ac LOCATION Lat: 35.4582 ºN Long: -80.8164 ºW HUC: 03040105 (Rocky) SITE Figure 1
MAYES HALL
Mecklenburg Co., NC
AERIAL
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification 6/08/19
Prepared for: Acres:
+/- 25.00
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
LSR
APPROXIMATE
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
The Bayard Group
Figure
2
MAYES HALL
Mecklenburg Co., NC
USGS MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification 6/08/19
Prepared for: Acres:
+/- 25.50
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
LSR
APPROXIMATE
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
SOUTH PRONG WEST
BRANCH ROCKY RIVER
LOCATION
Lat: 35.4582 N
Long: -80.8164 W
HUC: 03050105
ROCKY
SCALE
1:24,000
ACRES
2
USGS QUAD
Cornelius
The Bayard Group
Figure
3
MAYES HALL
Mecklenburg Co., NC
NRCS PUBLISHED SOILS
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
6/08/19
Prepared for: Acres:
+/- 25.50
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
LSR
APPROXIMATE
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
The Bayard Group
Figure
4
MAYES HALL
Mecklenburg Co., NC
TAX PARCEL MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
6/08/19
Prepared for: Acres:
+/- 25.50
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
LSR
APPROXIMATE
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
Parcel ID: 00716207
Richard G Sanderson
13415 Mayes Rd,
Huntersville NC 28078
Parcel ID: 00716206
Anne M Blount
12000 Mayes Rd,
Huntersville, NC, 28078
City of
Charlotte/Charlotte
Water Easement
The Bayard Group
Figure
5
SSxSSxSSx S Sx S Sx
SSx
SSx
S SxSSx
THE BAYARD GROUPProject No.IssuedMAYES HALLNSHEET OF EXISTING CONDITIONSSCALE:0300'150' 600'1"=300'Figure 6
SSx SDxSDxSSxSSx SSx S Sx
SSx
SSx
SSxSSx
THE BAYARD GROUPProject No.IssuedMAYES HALLNSHEET OFOVERALL SITE PLANSCALE:0300'150' 600'1"=300'Figure 7
THE BAYARD GROUPProject No.IssuedMAYES HALLNSHEET OF IMPACT AREASCALE:050'25' 100'1"=50'Figure 8
SSxSSxS Sx SSx SSx
SSx
SSx
SSxSSx
THE BAYARD GROUPProject No.IssuedMAYES HALLNSHEET OF STORMWATER PLANSSCALE:0300'150' 600'1"=300'SITE DATA TABLE:% IMPERVIOUS = 51%Figure 9
Jurisdictional Determination Jurisdictional
Determination Information

MAYES HALL
Mecklenburg Co., NC
DELINEATION MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
Figure 10

6/5/19
Prepared for:
The Bayard Group
Acres:
+/- 23.7

Drawn By:
NRN
Reviewed By:
LSR
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS

PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS

INTERMITTENT STREAM A
-375 LF
PERENNIAL STREAM B
-175 LF
WETLAND W
-0.005 AC
WETLAND C/CC
-0.2 AC
WETLAND D/DD
-0.017 AC
WETLAND E
-0.011 AC
WETLAND E
DATA POINT

UPLAND
DATA
POINT 1

NCDENR
STREAM FORM B

WETLAND C
DATA POINT

NCDENR
STREAM FORM A

*Field Verified by NCDEQ on 05/03/18*
*Field Verified by USACE on 09/28/18*

1

6

7

5

2

3

4

8

Mayes Road
Mecklenburg Co., NC – 4/12/18

INTERMITTENT STREAM A – PHOTO 1 PERENNIAL STREAM B – PHOTO 2
Mayes Road
Mecklenburg Co., NC – 4/12/18

WETLAND C – PHOTO 3
WETLAND E – PHOTO 4
Mayes Road
Mecklenburg Co., NC – 4/12/18

NON-JURISDICTIONAL SWALE – PHOTO 5 NON-JURISDICTIONAL SWALE – PHOTO 6
Mayes Road
Mecklenburg Co., NC – 4/12/18
WETLAND C/CC – PHOTO 8

NON-JURISDICTIONAL SWALE – PHOTO 7

Intermittent Stream A 35.4580 -80.8154 375 lf non-wetland waters 404
Perennial Stream B 35.4590 -80.8153 175 lf non-wetland waters 404
Wetland C/CC 35.4591 -80.8152 0.024 ac wetland 404
Wetland D/DD 35.4592 -80.8155 0.017 ac wetland 404
Wetland E 35.4595 -80.8156 0.011 ac wetland 404
Wetland W 35.4600 -80.8146 0.005 ac wetland 404
Geograhic authority to which
the aquatic resource "may
be" subject (i.e. Section 404 or
Section 10/404)
Site Number Latitude
(decimal degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resources in review
area (acreage and linear feet, if
applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e. wetland vs.
non-wetland waters)
Mayes Hall - Appendix 2 – PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
Table of Aquatic Resources in Review Area Which “May Be” Subject to Regulatory Jurisdiction
Threatened & Endangered Species Report Threatened & Endangered Species
Report
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
For Mayes Road
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney
August 8, 2019
Mayes Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
222
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
This site is +/-23.7 acres and consists of a centrally located residence; wooded
slopes; and large, open hayfield. It is located on the north side of Mayes Road,
just east of Barnhardt Road, in Davidson, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The site can be found on the Cornelius USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map;
latitude is 35.4582 °N, longitude is -80.8164 °W. The elevation is approximately
730 to 770 ft. (Figure 1).
Figure 1:
Mayes Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
3333
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/mecklenburg.html 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). The site was investigated on August 8, 2019
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Mecklenburg County
County: Mecklenburg, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on August 8, 2019
Group Name Status Record Status
Invertebrate Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata)
Endangered Current
Invertebrate Rusty-patched Bumble Bee
(Bombus affinis)
Endangered Historic
Vascular Plants Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata)
Endangered Current
Vascular Plants Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii)
Endangered Current
Vascular Plants Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii)Endangered Current
Vertebrate Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis
septentrionalis)
Threatened Probable/Potential
Vertebrate Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
Protected under the Bald
and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
Current
Mayes Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
444
SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS:
Three plant species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Mecklenburg County:
Schweinitz’s Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), listed as Federally Endangered,
is typically found in open habitats which historically have been maintained by
wildfires and grazing bison and elk herds. Now most occurrences are limited to
roadsides, woodland and field edges, and utility rights-of-way (ROW).
Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), listed as Federally Endangered, is
typically found in open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clear cuts, dry
limestone bluffs and power line rights-of-way, requiring abundant sunlight and
little competition from other plant species.
Michaux’s Sumac (Rhus michauxii), listed as Federally Endangered, requires
habitat of sandy forests and woodland edges. This species requires periodic fire
as a part of its ecology.
Four animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Mecklenburg County:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large bodies of open water
such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers, where there are suitable fish
populations and tall trees for nesting and roosting.
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally Endangered, is
restricted to cool, clean, well-oxygenated water. Stable, silt- free stream beds
are required for this species. Typically stable areas occur where the stream
banks are well-vegetated with trees and shrubs.
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), listed as Federally Threatened.
During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath
bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and non-
reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. It
has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Northern
long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula.
Rusty-patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis), listed as Federally Endangered,
live in colonies that include a single queen and female workers. Rusty-patched
Bumble Bees historically occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies. Bumble
bees need areas that provide nectar and pollen from flowers, nesting sites
(underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses), and
overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil).
Mayes Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
5555
RESULTS:
This site consists of a centrally located, large single family residence; wooded
slopes; and large, open hayfield.
The hay field is dominated by forage grasses and common forbs including
Fescue (Festuca spp.), Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), Kentucky Bluegrass
(Poa pratensis), Timothy-grass (Phleum pratense), Johnson Grass (Sorghum
halepense), White Clover (Trifolium repens), and Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor).
Summer forbs and weedy species present include Queen Anne’s Lace (Daucus
carota), Plantain (Plantago sp.), Pigweed (Amaranthus sp.), and Dogbane
(Apocynum cannabinum).
The wooded slopes are dominated by a disturbed dry-mesic mixed hardwood
forest with the average diameter at breast height (DBH) at 12 inches. Canopy
trees include White Oak (Quercus alba), Northern Red Oak (Q. rubra), Southern
Red Oak (Q. falcata), Black Oak (Q. velutina), Willow Oak (Q. phellos), Water
Oak (Q. nigra), Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa), Pignut Hickory (C.
glabra), Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). The subcanopy contains Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
American Elm (Ulmus americanus), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American
Holly (Ilex opaca), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Hackberry (Celtis laevigata),
Redbud (Cercis canadensis), Red Mulberry (Morus rubra), Black Gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), Winged Elm (U.alata), and Black Cherry (Prunus serotina). The shrub
layer includes Blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), American Strawberry Bush (Euonymus
americana), and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). Vines include Japanese
Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Trumpet Creeper (Campsis radicans), Catbrier
(Smilax sp.), Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Moonseed
(Menispermum canadense), Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and Poison Ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). The herb layer includes Christmas Fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), Ebony Spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Panic Grass
(Panicum sp.), and Grapefern (Botrychium sp.).
The roadside and transitional areas are dominated by Fescue turf grass (Festuca
sp.), and common invasive and native species including Johnson
Grass(Sorghum halepense), Sericea Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Ragweed
(Ambrosia sp.), Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Purple Top (Tripsacum dactyloides),
Wingstem (Verbesina sp.), Poke Weed (Phytolacca americana), St. John’s Wort
(Hypericum sp.), Groundsel (Baccharis sp.), Tickseed (Bidens sp.), Plume Grass
(Erianthus contortus), Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans), Gamma Grass
(Tripsacum dactyloides), Sourgrass (Rumex acetosella), Ragwort (Packera sp.),
and Beggars Ticks (Desmodium sp.).
Mayes Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
6666
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
There is no suitable habitat on this site for Schweinitz’s Sunflower,
Michaux’s Sumac and Smooth Coneflower, and none of these species
were present.
No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles, and there were no sightings
nor were any nesting sites observed.
This site does not have the habitat characteristics required to support
populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Based on existing
documentation, Carolina Heelsplitter populations have not been previously
identified within this basin.
Comparing this site location to the USFWS Asheville office’s website
(http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/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.
Comparing this site location to the USFWS Range Map for Rusty-patched
Bumble Bee
(https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html)
Mecklenburg County is in its Historic Range, and as such, Section 7
consultation is not needed. WEPG concludes that Rusty-patched Bumble
Bee is not present.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the site investigation and the review of available data, WEPG did not
identify any protected species occurring on the subject property. No further
investigation of the presence of protected species on this site is recommended at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
August 8, 2019
Mayes Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
7777
Curriculum Vitae for:
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist / Botanist
B.S. Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Ms. Gaffney is a classically trained botanist and natural resource biologist and has
conducted field work and investigative studies covering thousands of cumulative acres in
both North and South Carolina since 1996, including:
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.
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.
Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys and Natural Communities
Evaluation for over 50,000 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.