20201813 Ver 1_DIAGRAMS & COMMENTS_20210215

Strickland, Bev
From: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 4:29 PM
To: Perez, Douglas J; Johnson, Alan
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS; Jonathan Dale Grubb
Subject: RE: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
Attachments: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814 Response to RFI.pdf, Stormwater Exhibit.pdf,
SAW-2020-01283 (signed NWP).pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good afternoon Doug and Alan, hope you had a great weekend. Please find attached responses to your requests for
information. Please also let me know if this submittal through email will suffice, or if I need to submit this information
formally through the DWR project submittal website. Thanks, look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
BRANDON FULTON, LSS, PSC, PWS I Natural Resources Manager, Principal
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP I T 704.525.5152 1 D 704.409.7744 1 C 704.968.5704
www.ecslimited.com
Confidential/proprietary message/attachments. Delete message/attachments if not intended recipient.
From: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:31 PM
To: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS <[e-mail]>; Jonathan Dale Grubb <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
Hi Brandon,
It seems like we need to talk this over. I propose a Teams or Zoom call with everyone so that we can all be on the same
page. What date and time would be good for everyone?
Doug
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 4:08 PM
To: Perez, Douglas J; Johnson, Alan
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS; Jonathan Dale Grubb
Subject: RE: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
1

Doug and Alan,
I will have your requested information regarding stormwater asap; the engineers have been delayed in providing me
that information, so I'm harping on them to get it for us.
As for the remainder of your comments, I think it would be pertinent to get on a phone call to discuss versus email.
Jonathan Grubb was the PM who performed the delineation, and is on this email, documented the stream origin and
intermittent perennial break points subsequent to that. With the immense amount of rain we've had in the recent past,
the time of year, as well as the expansive nature of the surrounding soils onsite and adjacent to the site, I'm sure the
entire area is a mess and likely inundated. Those soils seal off immediately when wet, and sheet flow to the nearest
crenulation, resulting is flashy stormwater flow.
I have requested that the engineer/client provide a response and additional documentation for your question about site
plan shift. As part of the application package, the site plan completely avoided any impacts to what was called wetland
or perennial stream; therefore, avoidance and minimization was demonstrated. The grading and starving the stream of
hydrology, I would argue, is quite a broad stroke and could likely be argued for almost any impact where impervious is
proposed. An intermittent stream should be depending on the majority of its hydrology from groundwater, at least for
part of the year, versus surface flow.
Please let us know a convenient time to discuss this over the phone. I look forward to talking with you.
Regards,
BRANDON FULTON, LSS, PSC, PWS I Natural Resources Manager, Principal
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP I T 704.525.5152 1 D 704.409.7744 1 C 704.968.5704
www.ecslimited.com
Confidential/proprietary message/attachments. Delete message/attachments if not intended recipient.
From: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 3:08 PM
To: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS <[e-mail]>; Bryan.K.Roden [e-mail]1; Jonathan Dale Grubb
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
Hi Brandon,
As I stated yesterday, we went out to the site and had a few comments based upon what we saw.
First, we are still waiting on and requesting the information on how stormwater will be handled from both the BMP that
is currently there and the inlet from the street. Second, there really appears to be no effort put forth to show avoidance
and minimization of the impacts to the channel. We scored several sites along the channel and each time scored above
19 points. This indicates that the stream should have been classified as intermittent. Looking at your proposed site
plans, the building to the immediate right of the stream could easily be moved in order to avoid these impacts and
parking could be shifted elsewhere. Basically, the entirety of the watershed of this stream is being proposed to be paved
over for a parking lot. This would starve the downstream channel of its much needed hydrology. This will need to be
addressed, otherwise there is the distinct possibility of secondary impacts and mitigation for the loss of use of said
stream. Keep in mind, we are still on the timeclock with this application, so if you could get back to us as soon as
possible, we can avoid having to deny the application.
Thank you,
Doug Perez

From: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 5:22 PM
To: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS <[e-mail]>; Bryan.K.Roden [e-mail]1; Jonathan Dale Grubb
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Let us know when you plan on going; we are past budget on this one, and behind schedule from all the rain the past
week and a half. If Ron or I can make it we definitely will. The client/engineer are getting me maps for you shortly fyi.
Is there anything specific you're interested in with regards to the stream? The stream impacts will be fully mitigated
either way it goes. If you would like us to send you some site photos or data form(s) etc, we can do that as well if it'll
save you time.
BRANDON FULTON, LSS, PSC, PWS I Natural Resources Manager, Principal
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP T 704.525.5152 1 D 704.409.7744 1 C 704.968.5704
www.ecslimited.com
Confidential/proprietary message/attachments. Delete message/attachments if not intended recipient.
From: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:47 PM
To: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS <[e-mail]>; Bryan.K.Roden [e-mail]1; Jonathan Dale Grubb
<JGrubb(@ecslimited.com>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
Ok, thanks. So, do you want to be there when Alan and I walk the site?
Doug
From: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:50 PM
To: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS <[e-mail]>; Bryan.K.Roden [e-mail]1; Jonathan Dale Grubb
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good afternoon Doug — I can definitely get you a plan that has the BMP's clearly depicted. I'll get that to you asap.
BRANDON FULTON, LSS, PSC, PWS I Natural Resources Manager, Principal
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP T 704.525.5152 1 D 704.409.7744 1 C 704.968.5704
www.ecslimited.com

Confidential/proprietary message/attachments. Delete message/attachments if not intended recipient.
From: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:38 PM
To: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS <[e-mail]>; Bryan.K.Roden [e-mail]1; Jonathan Dale Grubb
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
Hi Brandon,
If you could have the engineers clearly define the stormwater BMP's that would be most helpful to us, thanks. I would
still like to go out to the site and put eyes on the stream in question. If you can't spare the time, then I could always just
head out on my own.
Doug
From: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 6:14 PM
To: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Johnson, PWS <[e-mail]>; Bryan.K.Roden [e-mail]1; Jonathan Dale Grubb
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good evening Doug and Alan, hope things are well with you and yours! I believe these are the two permit applications
(development and road) for Prosperity correct? I have added in Ron Johnson (Senior PM) who helped generate the
packages, and Jonathan Grubb who performed the field work.
I also cc'd Bryan in case he has any input.
The application was submitted as two separate projects, one for the proposed development, one for the road that will
be developed. The City of Charlotte has had this road on their transportation plan for a while, and it is proposed for the
connectivity of the area, not necessarily for the development, so it was determined by the USACE that the two projects
maintain independent utility; therefore, the USACE issued a 29 for the development and 14 for the roadway (attached).
The developer will be responsible for the construction of the road, the City (CDOT) will be take it over. The impacts for
the two projects were considered cumulative. The transportation plan was not included in the initial permit application
due to the size of the file; however, a link to it was provided. I can get you the file or the link if you need it.
The portion of stream proposed for impact was determined to be intermittent by the USACE; perennial as is exits the
wetland down grade. The proposed impact involves filling the stream for the development. The stream will also be filled
in the area of the road crossing instead of piped. Due to the grade/topography of the site, and the filling of the stream
for the development, it was determined that piping the stream wouldn't make sense, as there would be no flow coming
from upgrade where the stream was filled.
As for stormwater, there are stormwater SCM's proposed in the site plan, and these are depicted in the proposed site
plan. I can definitely have the engineers label the plans more clearly if that helps. The stormwater management plans
will be reviewed/approved by the City of Charlotte Stormwater Dep.

The site is in the area of Charlotte where the USACE is requiring mitigation for any and all impacts; additionally, there
are only credits available through the extended service area of DMS, so the client is essentially paying double the normal
mitigation credit amount. Although the projects were considered independent, the impacts were considered cumulative
by the USACE, and are being mitigated for as such. As part of review by the USACE, a sunflower survey was
requested/performed to ensure that no T&E species was impacted.
These two projects underwent pretty extensive review by the USACE and FWS, so our budgets have been more than
exhausted for some time. We'd be happy to get on a call and discuss if you have any further questions, and can provide
any updates or clarification you might need from a documentation standpoint. We are very limited on time with regards
to an additional site review.
Regards,
BRANDON FULTON, LSS, PSC, PWS I Natural Resources Manager, Principal
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP T 704.525.5152 1 D 704.409.7744 1 C 704.968.5704
www.ecslimited.com
Confidential/proprietary message/attachments. Delete message/attachments if not intended recipient.
From: Perez, Douglas J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 10:58 AM
To: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
Hello Brandon,
Alan and I were looking over the PCN's for these projects and we both had concerns about them. It seems to us that the
proposal is just for paving over a stream with no real reasoning behind it. Secondly, there are no pictures of the stream
provided with the application. Thirdly, there are no BMP's proposed in the design. How are they going to handle all of
the stormwater? We also had some concerns about the breaking up of the project between a 14 and a 39. Basically, we
need to meet at the site to go over the project and walk the stream. When might you be available?
Doug Perez
DWR
Dh4sion of Water Resources
Doug Perez— Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.

-------------------------------------------------------
This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.
-------------------------------------------------------
This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.
-------------------------------------------------------
This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.
-------------------------------------------------------
This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.
6

0
E C $ SOUTHEAST, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service',
0� Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F-1078
NC Registered Geologists Firm C-406
SC Registered Engineering Firm 3239
February 15, 2021
Mr. Doug Perez
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Resources
Mooresville Office
610 East Center Ave. Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Reference: Request for Information
DWR 20-1813 and DWR 20-1814
Prosperity Church Road
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 49: 10845
Dear Mr. Perez,
On behalf of WSB Retail Partners, LLC (WSB), ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) is submitting this
response to your information requests emailed to ECS and dated February 1, 3, and 10, 2021.
Below are the questions provided to ECS, with subsequent responses italicized.
DWR Question
As I stated yesterday, we went out to the site and had a few comments based upon what we
saw. First, we are still waiting on and requesting the information on how stormwater will be
handled from both the BMP that is currently there and the inlet from the street.
Client Response
In the existing condition, stormwater from onsite and some offsite areas is routed via a drainage
ditch to the subject stream. In the post development condition, stormwater runoff will be
routed to two stormwater BMP devices (wet pond or similar device) to manage stormwater and
discharge to the buffer area of the existing stream. The BMPs will be designed to
accommodate the offsite flows from Prosperity Church Road that currently discharge to the
existing ditch/stream. BMPs will be designed in accordance with the City of Charlotte Post
Construction Stormwater Ordinance (PCSO) for the Yadkin Basin. Please see attached exhibit
indicating the location of the stormwater BMPs.
DWR Question/Statement
Second, there really appears to be no effort put forth to show avoidance and minimization of
the impacts to the channel. We scored several sites along the channel and each time scored
above 19 points. This indicates that the stream should have been classified as intermittent.
Looking at your proposed site plans, the building to the immediate right of the stream could
easily be moved in order to avoid these impacts and parking could be shifted elsewhere.
Basically, the entirety of the watershed of this stream is being proposed to be paved over for a
parking lot. This would starve the downstream channel of its much needed hydrology. This will
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Texas, LLP
www.ecslimited.com

need to be addressed, otherwise there is the distinct possibility of secondary impacts and
mitigation for the loss of use of said stream. Keep in mind, we are still on the timeclock with
this application, so if you could get back to us as soon as possible, we can avoid having to deny
the application.
Client Response
ECS documented the ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial portions of the feature onsite
during our site review in July 2020, with subsequent verification by the USACE. ECS also obtained
photos of the features onsite at that time. ECS can provide any supportive information needed
to DWR if required. ECS also performed subsequent site visits to document site conditions, and
to perform soil analysis on the site for both Geotechnical Engineering and Soil
Science/Storm water related applications. Soils containing expansive clay mineralogy, typical of
the geographic area, were identified. These clays become saturated quickly during rain evens,
seal off, and water will sheet flow to the nearest crenulation(s) or low area, which will become
inundated. As noted from the results of the Antecedent Precipitation Tool performed by the
USACE, the site is under wetter than normal conditions, therefore, the ephemeral portion of the
channel likely does appear wetter than normal. ECS does not support the conclusion the that
project will result in starving the downstream hydrology of the feature. The stormwater
management plan will direct treated water from impervious portions of the site, as well as
adjacent areas, back to the stream. A stream, in order to be rendered intermittent or perennial,
should be supported by groundwater flow at or above the hyporheic zone at least portions of
the year; more prolonged for perennial portions.
During the design phase of the project, the client and development team made significant
changes to the site plan in an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to the stream and wetlands.
Originally, the proposed development would have resulted in more impact to the perennial
portion of the stream, as well as the wetland. Initially, a Senior Living Housing Development
was proposed east of the Prosperity Ridge Road Extension, in addition to commercial and
residential development. After completion of the wetland delineation, and further study
associated with the road alignment, those plans were revised to avoid impacts to the perennial
stream and wetland. This resulted in the re -location and design of the commercial and
residential development entirely to the west side of the Road, and abandoning the Senior Living
Housing Development altogether, in order to avoid impacts to the perennial stream and
wetland, and provide stormwater management. The Team finalized those plans with the City of
Charlotte after verification and approval of the Wetland Delineation from the Corps of
Engineers.
ECS and the client would assert that avoidance and minimization has taken place to a feasible
extent. Impacts to features have been avoided and minimized, with proposed impacts consistent
to similar projects of similar scale and intent. The client will be providing compensatory
mitigation to offset proposed impacts, and stormwater management consistent with the City of
Charlotte's stormwater management program/Phase 11 conditions. The project(s) have been
verified to use Nationwide Permits 14 and 29, and meet conditions of Water Quality
Certifications 4135 and 4139.
2

Conclusion
ECS looks forward to your attention to this request. Please contact Ron Johnson at (704) 995-
3963/[e-mail] or Brandon Fulton at [phone]/
[e-mail] with questions or if additional information is required.
Sincerely,
Ron Johnson, PWS
Environmental Senior Project Manager
[e-mail]
704.525.5152
W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS
Environmental Principal
[e-mail]
704.409.7744
Attachments: Approved Nationwide Permit (14&29) Verification Letter (SAW-2020-01283)
Stormwater Exhibit

i
so
IF
s
\V j� _
l
EXISTING _
'STREAM STORMWATERBMP
STOR MRWTAER
/
swom■ PROSPERITY RIDGE MIXED USE 4 ti SITE PLAN
PROJECT # CL1085 � EXHIBIT
DATE:2021.02.15 s F
SEAMONWHITESIDE SCALE:1"=200'
PLOTTED:2/15/2021 7:39 AM, BY Trey Little V:\CL1085VREF\CL1085 zSITE.dwg

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2020-01283 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Derita
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee:
WBS Retail Partners, LLC
Daniel Senden
Address:
474 Wando Park Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone Number:
678-758-9222
E-mail:
danielAwbsretail.com
Size (acres) 60 Nearest Town Charlotte
Nearest Waterway Stony Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.362377
Longitude:-80.779467
Location description: The review area is located. PINs: 02932105, 02932106, 02932112, 02932113, 02932121, and 0293213.
Reference review area description shown in Pre -Construction Notification entitled "Existing Conditions. Site Aerial" and
dated 10/21/20.
Description of projects area and activity: This verification authorizes the permanent stream impacts of 292 linear feet to facilitate
the construction of a 60-acre mixed -use multi -family development which is permitted under Nationwide Permit 29. In
addition, permanent stream impacts of 76 linear feet to facilitate the extension of Prosperity Ridge Road which is permitted
under Nationwide Permit 14.
Nationwide Permit No.
Type of Aquatic
Feature Impacted
Duration of Impact
Amount of Aquatic
Feature Impacted
Reason for Impact
14
Intermittent Tributary
Permanent
76 linear feet
Grading/fill
29
Intermittent Tributary
Permanent
292 linear feet
Grading/fill
Applicable Law(s): ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: NWP 14. Linear Transportation Projects and NWP 29. Residential Developments
SEE ATTACHED NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL, AND/OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed
Conditions, your application signed and dated 12/17/2020, and the enclosed plans Proposed Conditions Map dated 10/21/2020.
Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order,
a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified, suspended
or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this
verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified
nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would
no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction)
or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed
within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), prior
to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management Morehead City, NC, at [phone].

This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State
or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Bryan Roden -Reynolds at 704-510-1440or bryan.roden-reynolds(&usace.army.mil.
RODEN Digitally signed by RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 REYNOLDS.BRYANXENNETH.1263385574
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: 2021.01.1207:07:51 -05'00' Date: 1/12/2021
Expiration Date of Verification: 03/18/2022
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.anny.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent:
ECS, LLC
Brandon Fulton
Address:
1812 Center Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
Telephone Number:
704-525-5152
E-mail:
bfultonAecslimited.com

SAW-2020-01283
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
a. In order to compensate for impacts associated with this permit, mitigation shall be provided in accordance
with the provisions outlined on the most recent version of the attached Compensatory Mitigation Responsibility
Transfer Form. The requirements of this form, including any special conditions listed on this form, are hereby
incorporated as special conditions of this permit authorization.

Action ID Number: SAW-2020-01283 County: Mecklenburg
Permittee: WBS Retail Partners, LLC, Daniel Senden
Project Name: Prosperity Church Road
Date Verification Issued: 1/12/2021
Project Manager: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
or
[e-mail]
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may
result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I
administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Memorandum Documenting General Permit
Verification
1.0 Introduction and overview: Information about the proposal subject to one or more of
the Corps regulatory authorities is provided in Section 1, detailed evaluation of the
activity is found in Sections 2 through 4 and findings are documented in Section 5 of this
memorandum. Further, summary information about the activity including administrative
history of actions taken during project evaluation is attached (ORM2 summary).
1.1 Applicant name: WBS Retail Partners, LLC, Daniel Senden
1.2 Activity location: Latitude: 35.362377 Longitude:-80.779467 Location description: The
review area is located . PINs: 02932105, 02932106, 02932112, 02932113, 02932121,
and 0293213. Reference review area description shown in Pre -Construction
Notification entitled "Existing Conditions, Site Aerial" and dated 10/21/20.
1.3 Description of activity requiring verification:This verification would authorize the
permanent stream impacts of 292 linear feet to facilitate the construction of a 60-
acre mixed -use multi -family development which is permitted under Nationwide
Permit 29. In addition, permanent stream impacts of 76 linear feet to facilitate the
extension of Prosperity Ridge Road which is permitted under Nationwide Permit
14.
Nationwide Permit
No.
Type of Aquatic
Feature Impacted
Duration of Impact
Amount of Aquatic
Feature Impacted
Reason for Impact
14
Intermittent Tributary
Permanent
76 linear feet
Grading/fill
29
Intermittent Tributary
Permanent
292 linear feet
Grading/fill
1.4 Is this an After -the -Fact verification? No.
1.5 Date PCN determined complete for processing 12/18/2020
1.6 Jurisdiction Determination completed? An Approved JD was completed on
7/30/2020.
1.7 Permit authority: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344)
1.8 Applicable Permit: NWP 14. Linear Transportation Projects and NWP 29.
Residential Developments
1.9 Activity requires written waiver of NWP limits? No.
1.10 Activity requires a waiver from the requirements of a regional condition(s)? No.
2.0 Evaluation of the Pre -Construction Notification
2.1 Direct and indirect effects caused by the GP activity: The direct effects of the
proposed activity in waters would include the loss of jurisdictional waters (as

specified in Section 1.3) and their associated aquatic resource functions. The
proposed activity also has the potential to result in indirect effects to waters
including excess sedimentation in downstream waters, disruption and/or killing
of aquatic life in the direct vicinity of the project area, increase of downstream
flows, and blocking/restricting aquatic life passage transiting in and through the
project area. These indirect effects are expected to be minimal due to design
criteria and Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by Nationwide Permit
General and Regional Conditions. Additionally, indirect effects would be further
reduced through the implementation of BMPs required by state, local, and
Federal ordinances and regulations.
2.2 Site specific factors: The review area consists of fields and undeveloped, wooded
land and pen areas under mature forest canopy. Surrounding land use consists
of commercial properties, single-family residences, wooded land, and agricultural
fields.
2.3 Coordination
2.3.1 Was the PCN coordinated with other agencies? No.
Agency coordination with the USFWS is required for the Northern Long Eared
Bat. However, the Corps is not required to wait for a response from the USFWS
Asheville Office in accordance with local procedures.
2.3.2 Was the PCN coordinated with other Corps offices? No.
2.4 Mitigation
2.4.1 Provide brief description of how the activity has been designed on -site to avoid and
minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States
to the maximum extent practicable at the project site:The applicant provided a
detailed statement describing their efforts to avoid and minimized impacts to
waters of the United States on the project site in the preconstruction notification.
Based on this information, the Corps believes the applicant has avoid and
minimized impacts to waters of the United State to the maximum extent
practicable.
2.4.2 Is compensatory mitigation required for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional aquatic
resources to reduce the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects to a
minimal level?
Yes.
Provide rationale: Compensatory mitigation is required to ensure minimal adverse
environmental effects. Compensatory mitigation is required to ensure minimal
adverse environmental effects. The loss of stream channel associated with the
activity is greater than 150 linear feet.
2.4.3 Type and location of compensatory mitigation

Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank? Yes.
If yes, doeG the mitigation bank have appropriate number and resource type of credits
available No.
Is the impact in the service area of an approved in -lieu fee program? Yes.
If yes, does the in -lieu fee program have the appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? Yes.
Selected compensatory mitigation type/location(s): See Table 1
Table 1: Mitigation Type and Location
Mitigation bank credits
In -lieu fee program credits
X
ittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
-Perm
Permittee-responsible mitigation, on -site and in -kind
-Perm ittee-responsible mitigation, off -site and/or out of kind
Does the selected compensatory mitigation option deviate from the order of the options
presented in §332.3(b)(2)-(6)? N/A.
If yes, provide the rationale for the deviation, including the likelihood for ecological
success and sustainability, location of the compensation site relative to the impact site
and their significance within the watershed, and/or the costs of the compensatory
mitigation project (see 33 CFR §332.3(a)(1)):
2.4.4 Amount of compensatory mitigation: 736 linear feet of stream credits
Rationale for required compensatory mitigation amount: This amount of
compensatory mitigation is necessary to replace the permanent loss of WOUS
and temporal loss at the mitigation site. The PCN lacked any methodology (such
as North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology) to determine current
conditions of the impacted streams. Therefore, without this information, the
Corps assumed the impacted streams as high quality and determined the
compensatory mitigation ratio based on the limited information available and the
current quality assumption. In addition, there was not enough evidence provided
by the applicant to justify a reduction in compensatory mitigation ratio. The
Corps has determined the compensatory mitigation ratio for 368 linear feet of
stream impacts (i.e., 76 linear [NWP 14] and 292 linear feet [NWP 29])
at 2:1.
3.0 Compliance with Other Laws, Policies and Requirements
3.1 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
3.1.1 ESA action area: The action area includes the waters of the United States that will
be directly affected by the proposed work or structures and uplands directly
affected as a result of authorizing the work or structures.

3.1.2 Has another federal agency taken steps to document compliance with Section 7 of the
ESA and completed consultation(s) as required? No.
3.1.3 Known species/critical habitat present? No. The Corps has determined that it
has fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
IPAC Species in Mecklenburg County:
SPECIES
Effect determination(s), including no effect, for all known species/habitat, and basis for
determination (s): Based on the latest version of the Natural Heritage Program's
NHEO data, there are listed species located within or in the vicinity of the action
area and this activity is one that may affect those listed species. The Corps has
determined that the activity may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
species subject to the ESA. The Corps initiated consultation with USFWS on
December 18, 2020. In an email dated January 5, 2021, the USFWS stated "Based
on the information provided, I think we still don't have enough information to
make a prudent effect determination for Schweinitz's sunflower for this project.
Check out our August 10, 2020 response to the consultant wherein we request
additional information." In an email dated January 5, 2021, Corps requested the
applicant to comply with USFWS recommendation in the January 2021 email. In
an email dated January 6, 2021, the USFWS stated "Based on the presence of
suitable habitat onsite for the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower,
Michaux's sumac and smooth coneflower, but negative survey results collected
within the appropriate survey windows, we believe the probability for inadvertent
loss of these species from the proposed action would be insignificant and
discountable. Therefore, we would concur with a "may affect, not likely to
adversely affect determination" from your agency for these species."
3.1.4 Consultation with either the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service was initiated and completed as required, for any determinations other
than "no effect" (see the attached "Summary" sheet for begin date, end date and closure
method of the consultation).
The USACE reviewed this project in accordance with (IAW) the NLEB Standard
Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) between the
USACE, Wilmington District, and the Asheville and Raleigh U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) Offices, and determined that the action area for this project is
located outside of the highlighted areas/red 12-digit HUCs and activities in the
action area do not require prohibited incidental take; as such, this project meets
the criteria for the 4(d) rule and any associated take is exempted/excepted. IAW
the NLEB SLOPES, the USACE sent a Situation 1 email to the Service on January
12, 2021, informing them about this project.
Service Concurrence: as established in the NLEB SLOPES, this project does not
require prohibited intentional take of the NLEB and it meets the criteria for the
4(d) rule; therefore any associated take is exempt and it is not necessary for the
USACE to wait 30 days for the Service to object or concur.

Based on a review of the information above, the Corps has determined that it has
fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
3.2 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) The NWPs/RGPs were coordinated with the NMFS during the permit
renewal process. NMFS coordination/EFH consultation is required if the activity
affects SAV. This activity does not affect SAV. Therefore, NMFS coordination/EFH
consultation has been completed.
3.2.1 Has another federal agency taken steps to comply with EFH provisions of Magnuson -
Stevens Act? No.
3.2.2 Did the proposed project require review under the Magnuson -Stevens Act? No.
3.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
3.3.1 Section 106 permit area:The permit area includes those areas comprising waters of the
United States that will be directly affected by the proposed work or structures, as well
as activities outside of waters of the U.S. because all three tests identified in 33
CFR 325, Appendix C(g)(1) have been met.
Final description of the permit area: All three test have been met and portions of the
larger project undertaken outside of waters of the U.S. are in the permit area.
Activities undertaken outside WOUS are included in the permit area because
those activities are directly associated and integrally related with the authorized
work and those activities would not occur but for the authorization of the work
within the WOUS.
3.3.2 Has another federal agency taken steps to comply with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and completed consultation(s) as required? No.
3.3.3 Known cultural resource sites present and/or survey or other additional
information needed? No. Based on the NCDCR "HPOWEB" service, aerial
photographs, and a site visit, there are no known historic properties located in
the permit area or in close proximity to the permit area.
Effect determination and basis for that determination: The Corps has determined the
proposed activity will have no effect on properties listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, in a letter to the applicant
dated August 18, 2020, NCSHPO stated "We have conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed."
3.3.4 Consultation was initiated and completed as required with the appropriate agencies,
tribes and/or other parties for any determinations other than "no potential to cause
effects" (see the attached "Summary" sheet for consultation type, begin date, end date
and closure method of the consultation). The Corps has determined that it has fulfilled
its responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA.

3.4 Tribal Trust Responsibilities
3.4.1 Was government -to -government consultation conducted with Federally -recognized
Tribe(s)? No. There are no known tribal interests in the project area.
Provide a description of any consultation(s) conducted including results and how
concerns about significant effects to protected tribal resources, tribal rights and/or
Indian lands were addressed. The Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its tribal
trust responsibilities.
3.4.2 Other Tribal including any discussion of Tribal Treaty rights? Select Yes or No.
3.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act — Water Quality Certification (WQC)
3.5.1 Is a Section 401 WQC required, and if so, has the certification been issued or waived?
A general WQC has been issued for this permit.
3.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
3.6.1 Is a CZMA consistency concurrence required, and if so, has the concurrence been
issued, waived or presumed? N/A, a CZMA consistency concurrence is not
required.
3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
3.7.1 Is the projectlocated in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in
a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the
system? No. According to http://www.rivers.gov, the proposed project area is not
within a designated or study river.
3.8 Effects on Corps Civil Works Projects (33 USC 408)
3.8.1 Does the applicant also require permission under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act (33 USC 408) because the activity, in whole or in part, would alter, occupy, or use a
Corps Civil Works project? No, there are no Corps Civil Works project(s) in or near
the vicinity of the proposal.
4.0 Special Conditions
4.1 Are special conditions required to ensure minimal effects, protect the public interest
and/or ensure compliance of the activity with any of the laws above? Yes.
4.2 Required special condition(s)
Special condition:
a. In order to compensate for impacts associated with this permit, mitigation shall be
provided in accordance with the provisions outlined on the most recent version of the
attached Compensatory Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form. The requirements of

this form, including any special conditions listed on this form, are hereby incorporated
as special conditions of this permit authorization.
Rationale:See Section 2.4.2.
5.0 Determination
5.1 Waiver request conclusion, if required or select N/A: N/A.
5.2 The activity, with the required mitigation, will result in no more than minimal
individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment and will not be
contrary to the public interest, provided the permittee complies with the special
conditions identified above.
5.3 This activity, as described, complies with all terms and conditions of the permit identified
in Section 1.5.
RODEN Digitally signed by RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KE REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.126
33.5.74
NNETH.1263385574 Date: 2021.01.1207:07:21-05'00' Date: 1/12/2021
Bryan Roden -Reynolds

Compensatory Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form
Permittee: WBS Retail Partners, LLC, Daniel Senden Action ID: SAW-2020-01283
Project Name: Prosperity Church Road County: Mecklenburg
Instructions to Permittee: The Permittee must provide a copy of this form to the Mitigation Sponsor, either an approved
Mitigation Bank or the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), who will then sign the form to verify the
transfer of the mitigation responsibility. Once the Sponsor has signed this form, it is the Permittee's responsibility to ensure
that to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Project Manager identified on page two is in receipt of a signed copy of this
form before conducting authorized impacts, unless otherwise specified below. If more than one mitigation Sponsor will be
used to provide the mitigation associated with the permit, or if the impacts and/or the mitigation will occur in more than one
8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), multiple forms will be attached to the permit, and the separate forms for each Sponsor
and/or HUC must be provided to the appropriate mitigation Sponsors.
Instructions to Sponsor: The Sponsor must verify that the mitigation requirements (credits) shown below are available at the
identified site. By signing below, the Sponsor is accepting full responsibility for the identified mitigation, regardless of
whether or not they have received payment from the Permittee. Once the form is signed, the Sponsor must update the bank
ledger and provide a copy of the signed form and the updated bank ledger to the Permittee, the USACE Project Manager, and
the Wilmington District Mitigation Office (see contact information on page 2). The Sponsor must also comply with all
reporting requirements established in their authorizing instrument.
Permitted Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation Requirements:
Permitted Impacts Requiring Mitigation* 8-digit HUC and Basin: 03040105, Yadkin River Basin
Stream Impacts (linear feet)
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riparian Riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Coastal
368
*If more than one mitigation sponsor will be used for the permit, only include impacts to be mitigated by this sponsor.
Compensatory Mitigation Requirements: 8-digit HUC and Basin: 03040105, Yadkin River Basin
Stream Mitigation (credits)
Wetland Mitigation (credits)
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riparian Riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Coastal
736
Mitigation Site Debited:
(List the name of the bank to be debited. For umbrella banks, also list the specific site. For NCDMS, list NCDMS. If the NCDMS
acceptance letter identifies a specific site, also list the specific site to be debited).
Section to be completed by the Mitigation Sponsor
Statement of Mitigation Liability Acceptance: I, the undersigned, verify that I am authorized to approve mitigation
transactions for the Mitigation Sponsor shown below, and I certify that the Sponsor agrees to accept full responsibility for
providing the mitigation identified in this document (see the table above), associated with the USACE Permittee and Action
ID number shown. I also verify that released credits (and/or advance credits for NCDMS), as approved by the USACE, are
currently available at the mitigation site identified above. Further, I understand that if the Sponsor fails to provide the
required compensatory mitigation, the USACE Wilmington District Engineer may pursue measures against the Sponsor to
ensure compliance associated with the mitigation requirements.
Mitigation Sponsor Name:
Name of Sponsor's Authorized Representative:
Signature of Sponsor's Authorized Representative Date of Signature

Conditions for Transfer of Compensatory Mitigation Credit:
• Once this document has been signed by the Mitigation Sponsor and the USACE is in receipt of the signed form, the
Permittee is no longer responsible for providing the mitigation identified in this form, though the Permittee remains
responsible for any other mitigation requirements stated in the permit conditions.
• Construction within jurisdictional areas authorized by the permit identified on page one of this form can begin only after
the USACE is in receipt of a copy of this document signed by the Sponsor, confirming that the Sponsor has accepted
responsibility for providing the mitigation requirements listed herein. For authorized impacts conducted by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), construction within jurisdictional areas may proceed upon permit
issuance; however, a copy of this form signed by the Sponsor must be provided to the USACE within 30 days of permit
issuance. NCDOT remains fully responsible for the mitigation until the USACE has received this form, confirming that the
Sponsor has accepted responsibility for providing the mitigation requirements listed herein.
• Signed copies of this document must be retained by the Permittee, Mitigation Sponsor, and in the USACE administrative
records for both the permit and the Bank/ILF Instrument. It is the Permittee's responsibility to ensure that the USACE
Project Manager (address below) is provided with a signed copy of this form.
• If changes are proposed to the type, amount, or location of mitigation after this form has been signed and returned to
the USACE, the Sponsor must obtain case -by -case approval from the USACE Project Manager and/or North Carolina
Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). If approved, higher mitigation ratios may be applied, as per current District guidance
and a new version of this form must be completed and included in the USACE administrative records for both the permit
and the Bank/ILF Instrument.
Comments/Additional Conditions: A letter from NCDMS, confirming they are willing and able to accept the applicant's
compensatory mitigation responsibility, dated 11/30/2020 was included with the preconstruction notification.
This form is not valid unless signed below by the USACE Project Manager and by the Mitigation Sponsor on Page 1. Once
signed, the Sponsor should provide copies of this form along with an updated bank ledger to:1) the Permittee, 2) the USACE
Project Manager at the address below, and 3) the Wilmington District Mitigation Office, Attn: Todd Tugwell, 11405 Falls
of Neuse Road, Wake Forest, NC27587 (email: [e-mail]). Questions regarding this form or any of the
permit conditions may be directed to the USACE Project Manager below.
USACE Project Manager: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
USACE Field Office: Charlotte Regulatory Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Email: [e-mail]
RODEN Digitally signed by RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263 REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
385574 Date: 2021.01.12 07:06:24-05'00'
USACE Project Manager Signature
1/12/2021
Date of Signature
Current Wilmington District mitigation guidance, including information on mitigation ratios, functional assessments, and
mitigation bank location and availability, and credit classifications (including stream temperature and wetland groupings) is
available at http://ribits.usace.army.mil

'ONI 'S3IVIOOSSV ONV NWH—ATKA Ol Ulllevil 1f10H11M 39 11VHS 'ONI 'S3IVIOOSSV ONV NNOH—A3lWIN A9 NOI1V1dVOV ONV NOLLVZRJOHinV NII II M 1f10H1IM lUrin000 SIM NO 30NVI13N 83dONdW1 ON'
L.: rr, r. N r IN M W I M •Lx wilmilmW.- •.: •1 W.,• �• ul 9 •. r. I I . FAIN r. 61C LO.,1 1 9 11 It Im• •.- .[014=1 •1 MMI QVIR.'r.•1 • 91 MIMI
O' 1
(<<AajWI)j
go
��������•��������������% ��'�/� Ili / ' •
''. Gi
e
1