20200887 Ver 1_PCN Compiled_20200707

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
Project URP
✔
PCN request for a Commercial Development
Summit Avenue, URP, LLC
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC / WEPG
35.3276, -80.7690, Charlotte, NC
04713104
Mecklenburg
Charlotte
Mallard Creek
03040105
✔
✔39, 14, 18
SAW-2020-00946
1
July 7, 2020
Mr. Bryan Roden-Reynolds
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
Mr. Paul Wojoski
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: Pre-Construction Notification for NWP #s 14, 18, 39 for the Project URP site,
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Messrs. Roden-Reynolds, Johnson, Wojoski and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a Request for Nationwide Permits 14, 18, and 39 for the Project URP site on +/- 81
acres at the intersection of Governor Hunt Road and David Taylor Drive in Charlotte, NC. The
site is a proposed commercial development of a campus and consists of seven streams and four
wetlands. A preliminary jurisdictional determination request (SAW-2020-00946) was previously
submitted and proved by USACE (D. Shaeffer) on 6/10/2020. Please refer to the Jurisdictional
Determination and Approvals sections for information on onsite surface waters. A pre-
application meeting with the USACE was held on 3/19/20 in which the overall scope and layout
of the project with anticipated impacts were deemed to be reasonable.
As shown on the attached exhibits, the proposed project will include impacts to two streams and
two wetlands for one road crossing, fill, and grading. Overall impacts to site surface waters
associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection location, design,
and location/orientation of the proposed access routes. The total permanent impacts proposed
include 262 linear feet of stream impacts (Intermittent Streams C & G) and 0.01 acres of wetland
impacts (Wetland D). It was not possible to avoid impacts further due to the terrain, the
2
centralized location of the streams, and the resulting fill required to achieve buildable grades. For
example, grades in the northwest corner of the site would require excessive cuts in the order to
achieve the grade relationships needed; those cut depths would create massive amounts of non-
rippable rock, requiring site blasting. Please see the attached memorandum for additional specific
details regarding the project layout and design with respect to site constraints, safety, security,
and connectivity requirements.
Efforts of impact minimization were implemented during the design to preserve the existing
hydrology and limit adverse effects to existing, onsite natural habitat. Bottomless culverts for
road crossings and directional boring for utility crossings are proposed wherever practicable to
avoid additional impacts. A spring drain is proposed to maintain hydrology to Stream G and
Wetland M, where impacts to Stream G were required to achieve safe grades by avoiding large
headwalls adjacent to the daycare facility. Approximately 54% (greater than three times the
required amount) of the site will remain as undisturbed tree-save area. The applicant has
demonstrated substantial avoidance and minimization efforts in which 96% of the 6,761 linear
feet of stream channel and 97% of the 0.35 acres of wetlands onsite will be avoided.
To compensate for the anticipated permanent impacts, the applicant is proposing payment into
NCDMS at a 1:1 ratio for 262 linear feet of intermittent warm water stream.
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
Centene East Coast HQ
PN 1018369
July 1, 2020

Project Summary

Introduction
The Centene East Coast HQ Project is a high profile, transformational economic development opportunity for the
City of Charlotte and the State of North Carolina. The proposed campus is comprised of approximately 80 acres
located within Charlotte City limits, and within a research center known as University Research Park. The current
zoning of the parcel is split between RE-1 and RE-2 (Research). Proximity to Interstate 85, the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte campus, uptown Charlotte and Charlotte Douglass Airport are all considerations which
factored into the desired campus location. Access to a network of Greenway Trails and a Research Park also proved
to be important considerations as the project site was studied.

The Centene East Coast HQ campus is envisioned to become a vibrant, active and sustainable employment center
within the URP at University City. The campus will serve 5,700 future employees on site at full build out and reflect
the corporate culture of the Centene. Specific attention has been given to the idea of an active and wellness campus
environment. Health + Wellness, along with security and privacy are the driving themes for the development
strategies for the project as a whole. The architecture and the surrounding landscape & amenities work together
to define a theme and aesthetic for the project. Additionally, the organization of the campus focuses on natural
elements and amenities to provide an employee experience that serves as a differentiator for this project. The
single goal for the relocation project is to provide a state of the art campus which will recruit and retain the best
employee base in the region, while creating a truly unique and innovative employee experience.

The campus is comprised of an East Campus and West campus, converging in the middle by a connecting amenity
space. The project program is as follows:
East Campus – approximately 526,000 sf office space + 2,800 parking spaces (structured parking)
West Campus – approximately 526,000 sf office space + 2,800 parking spaces (structured parking)
University Training Center – 80,000 sf
Daycare Facility – 11,000 sf
Data Center – 80,000 sf
Amenity Courtyard
The organization of the buildings is arranged in a manner that boasts views of nature-towards Mallard Creek to the
south of the site. Walkability and proximity are also very important in maintaining a strong central core for the
Centene and their campus. Security and privacy are critical components of the function and arrangement of the
master plan. Significant investment will be made in preserving tree canopy for the site, which adds to the sense of
security and reinforces the theme of the project.

The central amenity facility serves to connect the East and West Campus with a pedestrian network that has been
identified within the thresholds for distances for the project. Featuring a sophisticated yet natural plaza – the
central courtyard will be a highly amenitized core for the Campus. Balancing a walkable transition between East
Campus and West Campus, gathering spaces will be programmed to allow for outdoor exploration. Mature Trees,
hardscape, water, enhanced landscape, and innovative spaces for gathering are all components of the central
courtyard. Bridges are located across water elements to enhance the connective perception between the East
Campus and West Campus. This is very important – the connection and celebration of the campus elements.
Significant grade for the site provides opportunities for terrace walls and enhanced views into nature. Site
furnishings and programmed spaces activate the courtyard and give it life with function for the Centene East Coast
HQ Campus. The design of this central courtyard is to effectively connect the campus- tying together the integral
planning components of the project.

The functionality of the central amenity core is an important consideration for the entire campus. It is critical for a
number of reasons including:
-Connecting element between East Campus and West Campus. But beyond a simple connection, it is
connected through programming and spaces required to fulfill requirements for Centene
-The shape of the core element facilitates walking distances and proximity requirements for Centene,
from a corporate strategy perspective
-The impacts to the stream within the core amenity area is based on grade constraints and presenting
a functional space for gathering and outdoor workplace utilization.
-The focus of the amenity is gathering – which is important. But there is a component of utilization
of space between the East and West Campus as a programmed, functional space. Dimensionally, the
amenity/plaza needs to perform in a certain manner. This space serves a highly functional role for
the operations of Centene.

Security and Safety have been a driving theme for this campus since the early stages of concept. The site has been
studied to balance the requirements of fire service, infrastructure requirements, code requirements and servicing
for the project. There are 4 main access points to the project (2 for the East Campus and 2 for the West Campus).
Each side will contain an employee entry and a delegate entry – all of which are gated. The entire project will be
gated for security. Fire access will loop around the perimeter of the site to the south and will be lower than the
level of the central courtyard – in an effort to hide that function. Additionally, the site contains a Daycare facility to
serve the employees needs. The location and functionality of the Daycare facility is intentional as a separated
component of the project. Spatially, this facility has specific design criteria which will greatly enhance the function
of the HQ Campus.

Preservation is at the core a vital component of the execution of this project. Environmental considerations drive
the functionality of the plan and how it is executed. There are several critical planning components that combine
to define the strategy for development of this site. Tree Preservation is a defining element in establishing the
aesthetic for the Campus. In addition to the canopy and shade that will be provided, the soil stability and limited
additional impervious for the project are site considerations that contribute to the design. Additionally, the
Stormwater Management is viewed as an innovative opportunity to treat water from the site and mitigate the
impervious improvements as part of the project. By allowing this function to be a visible and dramatic component
of the placemaking program, natural processes are enhanced. The FEMA Floodway to the south (Mallard Creek)
will remain undisturbed. The associated FEMA Floodplain and Community Floodplain have limited disturbance to
allow for the required development program. Minimizing impact to these environmental features are important to
the core of this campus. Understanding that the goal is to minimize impacts, it is important to note that areas that
are being avoided on the master plan are not simply leftover/ unused spaces. Geotechnical and environmental
constraints layer in to direct the areas which will need to be developed in order to achieve the critical project
elements for the project.

The central core of the project is critical for the functionality of the campus and allows necessary
connectivity within allowable thresholds between the East Campus and West Campus
Grades in the Northwest corner of the project create excessive cuts in order to achieve the site grade
relationships required for the project
The cut depths in the Northwest corner would create massive amounts of non-rippable rock identified
which would require site blasting.
The project desires to maintain an enhanced buffer off the public road as part of their overall security
requirements.
These spaces identified as either geotechnical or environmentally sensitive areas will function as a part of
the campus for active/ passive recreation, gathering and other uses relative to open spaces for the project.
Open spaces will be programmed as functional extensions of the building and working environment. The
programming of these spaces will vary due to topography, size, and proximity to the building and/or plaza
spaces.
Topography has also influenced the strategy of how the entire master plan works. Functionally, balancing
walls with buildings and campus core are integral components to the overall strategy for development of
the master plan.
The Corporate Campus Master Plan has evolved and has incorporated best practices for the workplace,
as identified and analyzed by the entire project/ development team. Critical linkages between buildings
and parking, including servicing are critical aspects of the plan which rely on proximity and a central
concept for design.

In summary, there are very specific requirements and criteria that has been defined by the entire design team which
shapes the strategy for the development of the master plan for Centene. Creating a state of the art Health &
Wellness Campus requires the balancing of many functional components and programming elements for the
building and campus to work efficiently. The team has worked through these exercises and challenged design
thoughts in order to ensure preservation of environmental features for the Campus. The functionality of the
Campus is reliant on proximity and vital linkages – joined together at the core.
Permit Application Permit Application
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. _____________
DWQ project no. _______________
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
401 Water Quality Certification – Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification – Express Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
Yes No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in-lieu fee program.
Yes No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. Yes No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
2b. County:
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Project URP
Mecklenburg
Charlotte
Summit Avenue URP, LL
26940-583
Matthew Browder
1440 South Tryon Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 29203
646-346-8871
[e-mail]
14, 18, 39
Page 2 of 10
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Daniel Kuefler
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
336-554-2728
[e-mail]
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: Longitude:
1c. Property size: acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin:
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:
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Yes No Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? Yes No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to “help file” instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? Yes No
6b. If yes, explain.
04713104
-80.769
80.9
Mallard Creek
C
03040105
Site is covered with successional mixed pine and hardwood forest, with slopes and drainages flowing into Mallard Creek which forms the southern site
boundary. Commercial properties surround the site and US Highway 85 is less than a mile southeast.
0.347
Fill and grading of the site will use standard equipment- excavator, dump truck, track how, etc.
WEPG
A PJD Request was submitted and approved (SAW-2020-00946) on 6/10/20. Please see the JD and Approvals section for details.
Phase 1-East Campus
Phase 2-West Campus
35.3276
6,761
Nic Nelson
Commercial development of a campus. The complex will be constructed in phases comprised of East Campus, West Campus,
University Training center, Daycare facility, and Data Center.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams – tributaries 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
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g.Total Wetland Impacts:
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
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Fill Headwater Wetland Yes Corps 0.01
Yes/No -
Yes/No -
Yes/No -
Yes/No -
Yes/No -
0.01
Choose one -
P
-
-
-
-
-
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
-
-
-
-
-
-
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Stream Impact
number Permanent
(P) or Temporary (T)
Type of Impact Stream Name
Perennial (PER)
or Intermittent
(INT)
Type of
Jurisdiction
Average
Stream Width
(feet)
Impact
Length (linear
feet)
S1 - P Culvert (NWP 39) Stream C INT Corps 3 152
S2 - T Dewatering
(NWP 39)Stream C INT Corps 3 20
S3 - T Construction
Access (NWP 39)Stream C INT Corps 3 5
S4 - P Culvert (NWP 14) Stream C INT Corps 3 34
S4 - T Construction
Access (NWP 14)Stream C INT Corps 3 5
S5 - P Fill (NWP 39) Stream G INT Corps 3 76
S6 - T Access (NWP 39) Stream G INT Corps 3 5
297Total Impacts
*Additional Minor Discharges (approximately 0.002 ac / 4 cubic yards) to Stream C will be required for the
installation of two Cross-Vanes on the daylighted portion between culverts.
University Research site - Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) FORM

Table C.1. Proposed Stream Impacts Summary

Page 5 of 10
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
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)
O1
O2
O3
O4
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1
P2
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
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
6h.Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Choose one Choose
Choose one
Yes/No
-
-
-
-
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose
Choose
Choose
Choose one
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
)
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
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 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
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:
Type:
Type:
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:
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.
Impacts associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection, location, design, and location/orientation of the proposed lots
and access routes. As shown on the attached exhibits, building orientation and layout was chosen to reduce impacts on jurisdictional features and
preserve natural areas. Bottomless crossings have been proposed wherever practicable to avoid additional impacts. A large portion of the site is being
undistrubed/retained as tree save areas. Please refer to the cover letters for additional information.
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize to onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances.
Crossings have been minimized using headwalls and 2:1 slopes to avoid additional impacts Utility crossings will be bored wherever possible.
262
warm
0.01
a 1:1 ratio is proposed for Intermittent Stream Impacts and a 2:1 ratio is proposed for Wetland Impacts.
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Overall impacts to site surface waters associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection location, design, and location/orientation of
the proposed access routes. Bottomless culverts for road crossings are proposed wherever practicable to avoid additional impacts. Approximately 54% (greater
than three times the required amount) of the site will remain as undisturbed tree-save area. The applicant has demonstrated substantial avoidance and
minimization efforts in which 96% of the 6,761 linear feet of stream channel and 97% of the 0.35 acres of wetlands onsite will be avoided.
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize the onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances. Crossings have
been minimized to the extent feasible. Cross Vanes will be used to reduce stream velocity immediately downstream of culverts. Utility crossings will be bored. A
spring drain is proposed to maintain hydrology to Stream G and Wetland M, where impacts were required to avoid unsafe headwalls adjacent to the daycare.
Page 7 of 10
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) – required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? Yes No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 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 8 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes No
1b. 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? %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? 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:

2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No
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
36.7
Storm water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has not yet been submitted to the City of
Charlotte but will be designed to meet their criteria
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes No
1b. 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
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Yes No
1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments:
Yes No
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,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes No
2c. If you answered “yes” to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes No
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.
Page 10 of 10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? Yes No
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?
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
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
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
_______________________________
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)

Date
A threatened/Endangered species assessment was conducted in which no species were identified. Habitat may exist for the Northern Long Eared Bat
but the project is exempt as noted in the included T&E report.
No essential fish habitat in this region.
Report by R.S. Webb is attached. State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) database http://gis.ncdnr.gov/hpoweb/
Impacts are allowed by FEMA and are permitted locally through Mecklenburg County's Floodland Development Permit process.
www.fema.gov; FEMA's Community Floodway Map #3710457700K and as surveyed and represented on project survey.
-
Daniel Kuefler 07-07-2020
Daniel
Kuefler
Digitally signed by Daniel Kuefler
DN: cn=Daniel Kuefler, o=WEPG,
ou,
email=daniel.kuefler@wetlands-
epg.com, c=US
Date: 2020.07.07 13:48:40 -04'00'
Leonard S. Rindner,
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: Project URP
Property Address: Governor Hunt Road, Charlotte, NC
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 04713104
Select one: I am the current property owner
Name: ?*00ve IZ
Company: '5kAKlu '-r Nr--%4 W- k-10—P i LLC
Mailing Address: k"D 50lUV 4} M* 1pt4 1�rL— • t Sq [i t 10
C..4' n-L� -AL vb?m3
Telephone Number:
Mail Address:
Inie"PeMed Buyer* / Other`
SW 120
Date
* The Interested Buyer/Other acknowledges that an agreement andlor 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.
Charlotte Office: www.wetiands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10. PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
[e-mail]

July 1, 2020

Kevin Vogul
LandDesign
223 North Graham Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 Expiration of Acceptance: January 1, 2021

Project: Project URP 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
(8-digit HUC)
Impact Type Impact Quantity
Yadkin 03040105 Warm Stream 300
Yadkin 03040105 Riparian Wetland 0.25

Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In-Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in-lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,

FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor

cc: Daniel Kuefler, agent

Maps/Plans Maps/Plans
Reviewed By: DCK 02/23/20 FIGURE 1 Drawn By: BLK Prepared for: LandDesign University Research Park Mecklenburg Co., NC VICINITY MAP For study purposes only - Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification PROPERTY BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS SITE Summit Ave URP, LLC
Reviewed By: DCK 02/23/20 FIGURE 2 Drawn By: BLK Prepared for: LandDesign University Research Park Mecklenburg Co., NC AERIAL MAP For study purposes only - Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification PROPERTY BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS Google Earth Maps Data Imagery 2020 Summit Ave URP, LLC
Reviewed By: DCK 02/23/20 FIGURE 3 Drawn By: BLK Prepared for: LandDesign University Research Park Mecklenburg Co., NC USGS MAP For study purposes only - Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification PROPERTY BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS MALLARD CREEK LOCATION Lat: 35.3276 N Long: -80.7690 W HUC: 03040105 ROCKY SCALE 1:24,000 ACRES 80.86 USGS QUAD Derita, NC 1993Summit Ave URP, LLC
Reviewed By: DCK 02/23/20 FIGURE 4 Drawn By: BLK Prepared for: LandDesign University Research Park Mecklenburg Co., NC SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT MAP For study purposes only - Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification PROPERTY BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS NRCS Soil Survey ManuscriptMecklenburg County (1980) Summit Ave URP, LLC
Reviewed By: DCK 02/23/20 FIGURE 5 Drawn By: BLK Prepared for: LandDesign University Research Park Mecklenburg Co., NC TAX PARCEL MAP For study purposes only - Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification PROPERTY BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS PARCEL: 04713104 SUMMIT AVENUE URP LLC 1440 SOUTH TRYON ST SUITE 104 CHARLOTTE NC 28203Summit Ave URP, LLC
(Figure 6)Figure 7Figure 8Figure 9Figure 10Figure 11Figure 12Figure 13
(Figure 7)
(Figure 8)
(Figure 9)
(Figure 10)
(Figure 11)
(Figure 12)
(Figure 13)
(Figure 14)
Inset: See Figure 17Proposed Fill for Daycare Play Area(NWP 39)76 LF of Permanent Stream Impact (Stream G)5 LF Temporary Stream Impact (Stream G)Inset: See Figure 16Proposed Central Project Courtyard(NWP 39)152 LF of Permanent Stream Impact (Stream C)5 LF Temporary Stream Impact for Headwall Construction (Stream C)20 LF Temporary Stream Impact for Dewatering (Stream C)Inset: See Figure 16Proposed Emergency Services Road Crossing(NWP 14)34 LF of Permanent Stream Impact (Stream C)5 LF Temporary Stream Impact for Headwall Construction (Stream C)0.01 AC Permanent Wetland Impact for RipRap Apron (Wetland D)Inset: See Figure 16Minor Discharges for Cross-VaneInstallation(NWP 18)Impacts not to exceed 0.002 AC /4 Cubic Yards (Stream C)2626,761(Figure 15)
GOVERNOR HUNT ROADNWP18 MINOR IMPACTS (<0.002 ac) FOR(2) CROSS-VANE INSTALLATIONSALONG OPEN STREAM SECTION(TYP.)0.01 AC PERMANENT WETLANDIMPACTS (WETLAND D)CLASS 3 RIP RAP FORREQUIRED ENERGYDISSIPATION152 LF STREAM IMPACTS34 LF STREAM IMPACTS(Figure 16)
5' TEMP. STREAM IMPACTFOR WALL CONSTRUCTIONTO BE RESTORED AS SHOWNON STABILIZATION EXHIBIT76UNDISTURBED(Figure 17)
(Figure 18)
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES WIRELESS (U.S.A.) MH5 DATA CENTERS - CHALOTTE DEVELOPMENT, LLCLOT 2H5 OB - CHALOTTE, LLCLOT 3ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA, INC.ELECTROLUX NORTHAMERICA, INC.SUMMIT AVENUE URP, LLCGOVERNOR HUNT ROADDAVID TAYLOR DRIVE(Figure 19)
(Figure 20)Proposed Emergency Services Road Crossing(NWP 14)34 LF of Permanent Stream Impact (Stream C)5 LF Temporary Stream Impact for Headwall Construction (Stream C)0.01 AC Permanent Wetland Impact for RipRap Apron (Wetland D)Minor Discharges for Cross-Vane Installation (NWP 18) Impacts not to exceed 0.002 AC / 4 Cubic Yards (Stream C)Proposed Central Project Courtyard (NWP 39) 152 LF of Permanent Stream Impact (Stream C) 5 LF Temporary Stream Impact for Headwall Construction (Stream C) 20 LF Temporary Stream Impact for Dewatering (Stream C)
(Figure 21)
(Figure 22)
(Figure 23)
(Figure 24)
FIGURE NO.

University Research Park
Mecklenburg Co., NC

STREAM BANK STABILIZATION DETAIL
TYPICAL DETAIL – N.T.S.

DATE:

7/6/20
Drawn By:
LSR DCK
Reviewed By:
25
Jurisdictional Determination Jurisdictional
Determination Information
Reviewed By: DCK 2/23/20 FIGURE 6 Drawn By: NRN Prepared for: Summit Avenue URP, LLC University Research Park Mecklenburg Co., NC DELINEATION MAP For study purposes only -Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verificationPERENNIAL STREAM A -1,795 lf INTERMITTENTSTREAM B - 48 lf INTERMITTENT STREAM C - 486 lf WETLAND D - 0.29 ac WETLAND E -0.014 ac WETLAND H - 0.03 ac INTERMITTENT STREAM G -81 lf PERENNIAL STREAM F - 1,737 lf INTERMITTENT STREAM I - 139 lf WETLAND II -0.013 ac PROPERTY BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS 80.86 AC +/- 1 2 3 4 5 6 NCDEQ STREAMFORM A NCDEQ STREAMFORM C USACE UPLAND FORM DP1 USACE WETLANDFORM D MALLARD CREEK -2,475 lf *** USACE Verification 6/10/2020 *** 26
Reviewed By: DCK 02/23/20 FIGURE 27 Drawn By: BLK Prepared for: Summit Avenue, URP, LLC University Research Park Mecklenburg Co., NC FEMA MAP For study purposes only - Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification PROPERTY BOUNDARY STUDY LIMITS FEMA FLOODPLAIN AS PER CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG POLARIS ONLINE GIS
Governor Hunt Road
Mecklenburg Co., NC – 2/23/20
MALLARD CREEK – PERENNIAL STREAM –
PHOTO 1
PERENNIAL STREAM A – PHOTO 2
Governor Hunt Road
Mecklenburg Co., NC – 2/23/20
INTERMITTENT STREAM G – PHOTO 3 INTERMITTENT STREAM C – PHOTO 4
Governor Hunt Road
Mecklenburg Co., NC – 2/23/20
WETLAND II – PHOTO 5
WETLAND D – PHOTO 6
Threatened & Endangered Species Report Threatened & Endangered Species
Report
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
For:Governor Hunt Road Site
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney
July 2, 2020
Governor Hunt Road Site - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
222
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The Governor Hunt Road Site (+/- 80.86 acres) is located just south of Governor
Hunt Road and David Taylor Drive, and just north of Mallard Creek in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. It can be found on the Derita NC USGS
Topographic Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.3276 N, longitude is -80.7690 W.
The topography is gently to moderately sloped. The elevation ranges from 600
to 730 ft. (Figure 1). The site is covered with successional mixed pine and
hardwood forest, with slopes and drainages flowing into Mallard Creek which
forms the southern site boundary.
Figure 1:
Governor Hunt Road Site - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
3333
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.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). Maps and aerial photographs were assembled, and the site was investigated
during the weeks of March 16 and April 6, 2020; and July 1, 2020.
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Mecklenburg County
County: Mecklenburg, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on March 16, 2020
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
Governor Hunt Road Site - 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).
Governor Hunt Road Site - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
5555
RESULTS:
The site is part of University Research Park, a commercial business park
development. It is covered with successional mixed pine and hardwood forest,
with slopes and drainages flowing into Mallard Creek which forms the southern
site boundary. There are maintained walking trails on site that tie into the
greenway trail along Mallard Creek. The roadsides along Governor Hunt Road
and David Taylor Drive are planted in Fescue turf grass (Festuca sp.) and
cultivated Red Maple trees (Acer rubrum).
The disturbed mixed hardwoods forest on the slopes and drainages has an
average diameter at breast height (dbh) of 12 inches, with some larger trees up
to 30 inches dbh present. The upper slopes approximate a Basic Oak-Hickory
Forest community type, grading into Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest in the bottomlands along the streams. The canopy is composed of
Shortleaf Pine (P.echinata), White Oak (Quercus alba), Post Oak (Q. stellata),
Red Oak (Q. rubra), Southern Red Oak (Q. falcata), Willow Oak (Q. phellos),
Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra), Shagbark Hickory (C. ovata), Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Hackberry
(Celtis laevigata), Black Walnut (Juglans nigra), American Elm (Ulmus
americana), and White Ash (Fraxinus americana). The subcanopy is composed
of Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida), American Holly (Ilex opaca), Mulberry
(Morus rubra), Winged Elm (Ulmus alata), Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), Black
Cherry (Prunus serotina), Eastern Red Cedar, and Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica).
The shrub layer includes Black Haw (Viburnum prunifolium), and Pinxter Azalea
(Rhododendron nudiflorum), Heart’s-a-burtstin (Euonymus americanus),
Sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus), Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Vines present
are Japanese Honeysuckle, Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Mikania scandens (Climbing Hempvine), Catbrier
(Smilax spp.), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The herb layer includes
Heartleaf Ginger (Hexastylis arifolia), Christmas Fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), Ebony Spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Spotted
Wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), American alumroot (Heuchera americana),
Running Pine (Lycopodium flabelliforme), Downy Rattlesnake Plantain
(Goodyera pubescens), Curlyheads (Clematis ochroleuca), Beardtongue
(Penstemon sp.), Solomon’s Seal (Polygonatum biflorum) and Japanese Stilt
Grass (Microstegium vimineum).
The assemblage of plants growing in the transitional areas around the trail and
woods edges are Sericea Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus), Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense), Splitbeard (A.
ternarius), Beggars Ticks (Desmodium sp.), Thoroughwort (Eupatorium sp.), St.
John’s Wort (Hypericum punctatum), Goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and Henbit
(Lamium amplexicaule).
Governor Hunt Road Site - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
6666
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
All potential habitats for Schweinitz’s Sunflower, Michaux’s Sumac and
Smooth Coneflower along the roadsides, transitional areas and woods
edges were examined 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.
There is no habitat on site for the Carolina Heelsplitter. Based on existing
documentation, Carolina Heelsplitter populations have not been previously
identified within this basin. No individuals were observed during the survey
nor would any be expected on-site.
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
July 1, 2020
Governor Hunt Road Site - 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. Organized, directed,
and conducted field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County for the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Lincoln County NC Natural Heritage Inventory. Organized, directed, and
conducted 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 numerous previously unreported populations of
Federally Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
Located and identified numerous previously unreported populations of
Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
Found 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.
Cultural Resources Report Cultural
Resources
Report
R.S. Webb & Associates
Cultural Resource Management Consultants
2800 Holly Springs Parkway, Suite 200 - P.O. Drawer 1319
Holly Springs, Georgia 30142
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
April 8, 2020
Mr. Daniel Kuefler
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
Subject: Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Search
University Research Park Development Tract
Charlotte-Derita, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
R.S. Webb & Associates Project No. 20-649-123
Dear Mr. Kuefler:
BACKGROUND
During March 2020, R.S. Webb & Associates conducted a desk-top cultural resources literature
review for the proposed University Research Park development tract near Derita, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. The review was conducted to identify previously recorded cultural
resources located within or near the project area. A "cultural resource" is defined as a discrete area
of human activity that is more than 50 years old. The study tract is located on the north side of
Mallard Creek, east of Mallard Creek Road in northeast-central Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. The project area is on the USGS Derita, North Carolina 7.5-minute quadrangle map
(Figure 1).
METHODOLOGY
Literature and Records Search: Through the State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) HPOWeb
database, information regarding National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties,
Mecklenburg County historic structures, and other surveyed, studied, and/or determined-eligible
historic resources was reviewed and collected. Historic county maps were viewed online through
North Carolina Maps, a collaboration of the University of North Carolina, the State Archives of
North Carolina, and the Outer Banks History Center. Historic aerial photography and additional
historic maps were accessed through Historicaerials.com, Earthexplorer.usgs.gov,
Legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/and Alabamamaps. ua.edu.
Note: The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was closed to the public and to
consultants on March 17, 2020 due to the COVID 19 emergency. Therefore, research regarding the
presence or absence of recorded archeological sites in or near the study area was performed
through electronic communication with OSA personnel.
The following primary sources were found to be useful in searching for historic resources within and
adjacent to the project area:
• 1910 USDA Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1911 County Commissioner’s Map of Mecklenburg County
Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Search, University Research Park Development Tract Page 2
April 8, 2020
• 1912 Rural Delivery Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1930, 1936, 1938, 1953, 1968, 1972, and 1980 State Highway and Public Works
Commission Map of Mecklenburg County
• 1983 and 1986 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Metropolitan Planning Organization-
Thoroughfare Plan Maps of Mecklenburg County
• 1948 USGS Derita, North Carolina 7.5 Quadrangle Map
• 1956 and 1968 aerial photographs of Mecklenburg County
• Google Earth Aerial imagery, 1993-Present
RESULTS
Previous Cultural Resources Investigations: According to maps provided by the OSA, there have
been at least seven previously planned and/or preformed cultural resources investigation projects
conducted within 1.0 mile of the current project tract. Two of these projects, ER18-0707 and ER
19-0835, were planned and/or performed within 1,000 feet of the current project area but do not
overlap with it (Figure 1).
National Register of Historic Places: There are no NRHP-listed historic properties located within
1.0 mile of the project area.
State Study List Properties and Properties Determined -Eligible for the NRHP: No State Study List
sites or Determined-Eligible properties are located within 1.0 mile of the study tract.
Mecklenburg County Historic Resources: The HPOWeb on-line database indicates that there are four
surveyed-only historic resources located within 1.0 mile of the project tract. These resources were
identified either by survey (1990) or by other types cultural resources identification projects (e.g.,
road or bridge improvement studies), but they have not been assessed for historic integrity or NRHP-
eligibility. The closest of these properties, Resource MK-3260 (aka Bridge No. 83), is located
approximately 780 feet west of the project area (Figure 1). Google Earth imagery indicates that the
associated roadway (Mallard Creek Road) was widened, and that the historic bridge was either
replaced, heavily modified and/or it was encapsulated within a replacement structure between
January 1993 and March 1998.

OSA-Recognized Archeological Sites: According to OSA personnel, there are 10 recorded
archeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the project tract. The closest site, 31MK11, is a
prehistoric lithic scatter located approximately 600 feet west of the project area; the site has not been
assessed for NRHP-eligibility (Figure 1).
Historic Cemeteries: Historic maps and aerial photographs show no cemeteries located within or
adjacent to the project area.
Revolutionary War Actions/Features: After capturing Savannah, Georgia (December 1778) and
Charleston, South Carolina (May 1780), Sir Henry Clinton returned to New York and left Charles
(Lord Cornwallis) and just more than 8,000 troops to conquer North Carolina. Following victory
at Camden, South Carolina, the British aimed to occupy Charlotte and to restore the Royal
government there. However, resistence to Cornwallis’ movement was substantial, and it took his
army 17 days to march the 70 miles from Camden to Charlotte. Upon Cornwallis’ arrival at
Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Search, University Research Park Development Tract Page 3
April 8, 2020
Charlotte on October 3, 1780, the rebels constantly harassed his foraging parties, captured his scouts,
and captured or killed his messengers. As a result, it took nearly a week for Cornwallis to learn of
the defeat of his left wing at King’s Mountain. Following a series of small skirmishes around
Charlotte (though none were located near the project area), Corwallis abandoned this first attempt
to subdue North Carolina, calling the vicinity a “hornet’s nest” of rebellion. Cornwallis retreated
south to Winnsborough, South Carolina and made a second attempt at North Carolina the following
campaign season (1781); this time he bypassed the Charlotte/Mecklenburg County area to the west
and north (Powell 1989, Lewis 2011).

Civil War Actions/Features: Review of the Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al.
1983) revealed that no significant Civil War military activity occurred in present Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. Union General William T. Sherman, following the capture of Columbia,
South Carolina on February 17, 1865, moved north to the vicinity of Lancaster County, South
Carolina, but his army then turned northeast and moved toward Laurel Hill and Fayetteville, North
Carolina, thus bypassing the project region to the south and east (Davis et al. 1983).
Structures on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs: Maps of Mecklenburg County produced
during the period 1910-1912 show Mallard Creek Church Road well to the north and the meandering
(since straightened) course of Mallard Creek Road just west of the project tract. Secondary roads,
with structures along their courses, passed northeast and southwest of the project area (Figure 1).
State highway or Road Commission maps produced during the period 1930-1938 indicate evolution
in the course of Mallard Creek Road with the current route assumed by the latter date. None of these
maps, however, show additional roads or structures located in or near the study tract. The 1948
Derita quadrangle map shows (Figure 1): Island Park Circle, a historic segment of Mallard Creek
Road located 250 feet east of the study area; Alexander Road, a remnant of a historic through road
located 600 feet north of the of the study area; and what may have been Lagrange Road, a remnant
of an historic though road located 2,000 feet east of the study area. Structures were depicted along
the east of project side of former route and at the terminal ends of the latter two roads. Highway
maps produced during the period 1953-1980 also show roads approaching the study area from the
north, west, and east, but the maps depict no structures.
The 1988 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan map shows the Governor Hunt Road/David
Taylor Drive courses that form the north study area boundary (these routes did not appear on a 1983
verison of the same map). The 2019 Derita, North Carolina quadrangle map shows the Mallard
Creek Greenway passing along the south study area boundary (Figure 1) ; this feature also appears
on aerial photographs from 1993.
Aerial photographs taken in 1956 show the altered course of Mallard Creek Road and the remaining
arched section of roadway (now Island Park Circle) located west of the project area with structures
along its course. The project tract was almost entirely wooded in 1956, with the more heavily
vegetated areas located in the northeast and west parts of the tract. Land still in cultivation, centered
on a house located at the south end of Alexander Road, extended to near the north project area
boundary; cultivated land was located near the creek in and near the east part of the study tract. No
structures or other features appeared in or near the project area in 1956. Aerial photographs from
1968 show no change other than the further maturation of above-described wooded areas.
Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Search, University Research Park Development Tract Page 4
April 8, 2020
CONCLUSIONS
There are no NRHP-listed properties, known archeological sites or recorded historic resources
located within or near the project tract. A historic bridge site and an unassessed archeological site
lie 600 feet and more west of the study area. Historic maps and aerial photographs indicate no
human occupation and some agricultural use of the study area during the 20 century.
th
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Rindner, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact me at 770-345-0706.
Sincerely,
R.S. WEBB & ASSOCIATES
Neil J. Bowen Robert S. (Steve) Webb
Historian President and Senior Principal Archeologist
Attachments: Figure 1
REFERENCES
Davis, G.B., L.J. Perry and J.W. Kirkley, compiled by C.D. Cowles
1983 Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.
Reprint of the 1891-1895 edition. The Fairfax Press, New York.
Lewis, J.D.
2013 “The Known Battles & Skirmishes in South Carolina.” The American Revolution in
South Carolina. Internet-Online. Found at: http://www.carolana.com/SC/
Revolution/. Accessed November 17, 2019.
Powell, W.S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill and London.
r
ER 19
%*(Bridg%No.•l
' r
r�
1 r -
ER
Alexan
••' ❑ ❑
Project
,13 -
-ti
`ter i
1
3 �
Island Cieek
Circle
Mallard Creek
Greenway
! •
❑ Structure on Historic Maps
O Recorded Archeological Site
N.N
��•Lagrange �.
Road/Carnegie
Boulevard
o�
Previous Cultural Resource Project
Road on Historic Maps
Map Reference: 7.5-Minute USGS Quadrangle Scale
Derita (2019), NC 0 305 meters
0 1000 feet
Figure 1 Project Area and Cultural Resources Location Map

Approvals Approvals /
Authorizations
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2020-00946 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Derita
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Summit Avenue URP, LLC
Matthew Browder
Address: 1440 South Tryon Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 29203
Telephone Number: 646-346-8871
E-mail: mattna,browdereroun.com
Size (acres) 80.9 Nearest Town Charlotte
Nearest Waterway Mallard Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.3276
Longitude:-80.7690
Location description: The review area is located on the south side of Governor Hunt Road, 0.16 miles east of the intersection of
Mallard Creek Road and Governor Hunt Road. PIN. 0471310.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 2/23/2020. Therefore,
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once

SAW-2020-00946
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David L. Shaeffer at 704-510-1437 or
david.l.shaefferC& usace. army. m il.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 06/10/2020.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Digitally signed by
S H AEF F E R.DAVI D.LEIG H.1260750573
Coles Regulatory Official: Dace: 2020.06.1012:24:05-04'00'
Date of JD: 06/10/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2020-00946
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Daniel Kuefler
Address: 10612-D Providence Road
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone Number: 336-554-2728
E-mail: daniel.kueflerna,wetlands-epg.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Summit Avenue URP, LLC, Matthew
File Number: SAW-2020-00946
Date: 06/10/2020
Browder
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑X
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT M
F
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David L. Shaeffer
CESAD-PDO
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: David L. Shaeffer, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 06/10/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Summit Avenue URP, LLC, Matthew
Browder, 1440 South Tryon Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 29203
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Project URP, SAW-2020-
00946
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the
south side of Governor Hunt Road, 0.16 miles east of the intersection of Mallard Creek Road and Governor
Hunt Road. PIN. 0471310.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.3276 Longitude:-80.7690
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mallard Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 6/10/2020 by the Corps
El Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAYBE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
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
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs.
non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section 404
or Section 10/404)
Stream A
35.3286
-80.7704
1500 feet
Non -Wetland
404
Stream B
35.3264
-80.7697
75 feet
Non -Wetland
404
Stream C
35.3272
-80.7658
700 feet
Non -Wetland
404
Wetland D
35.3266
-80.7655
0.2 acre
Wetland
404
Wetland E
35.3254
-80.7621
0.01 acre
Wetland
404
Stream F
35.3283
-80.7627
1600 feet
Non -Wetland
404
Stream G
35.3262
-80.7611
200 feet
Non -Wetland
404
Wetland H
35.3261
-80.7613
0.05 acre
Wetland
404
Stream 1
35.3284
-80.7623
150 feet
Non -Wetland
404
Wetland 11
35.3281
-80.7623
0.01 acre
Wetland
404
Mallard Creek
35.3236
-80.7609
2475 feet
Non -Wetland
404

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general
permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit
applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit
authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before
accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being
required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an
individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other
general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and
thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including
whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6)
accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking
any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD
constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction
in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or
a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit
denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an
administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether
geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an
official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that
there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S.
on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could
be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items are included in the administrative
record and are appropriately cited:
❑X Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figure 6 dated 02/23/2020
®Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Datasheets: Wetland D and Upland DPI
dated 02/23/2020
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
El Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑Corps navigable waters' study:
El U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑USGS NHD data:
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps:
©U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Figure 3 dated 02/23/2020
❑Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure 4 dated 02/23/2020
❑National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: © Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 2 dated 02/23/2020
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site Photos 1-6 dated 02/23/2020
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑XOtherinformation (please specify): Parcel Map - Figure 5 dated 02/23/2020, Vicinity Map - Figure 1 dated
02/23/2020, NCDENR Stream Evaluations (Stream A&Q dated 02/23/2020
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarilv been verified by the G
and should not be relied upon for later iurisdictional determinations.
Digitally signed by
SHAEFFER.DAVID.LEIGH.12
60750573
Date: 2020.06.10 12:24:35
-04'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory Signature and date of person requesting PJD
staff member completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
06/10/2020 impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established
time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.