20201428 Ver 1_West Blvd Permit info sheets_20210716

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DPI: upld
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species? Status
1 Pinus taeda 25 Yes FAC
2. Ulmus americana 20 Yes FACW
3. Liquidambar styraciflua 20 Yes FAC
4. Quercus stellata 10 No UPL
5.
6.
75 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 38 20% of total cover: 15
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15
1. Liquidambar styraciflua 30 Yes FAC
2. Comus florida 10 Yes FACU
3. Ulmus alata 10 Yes FACU
4.
5.
6.
50 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
1. Ligustrum sinense 50 Yes FACU
2. Elaeagnus angustifolia 20 Yes FACU
3. Liquidambar styraciflua 10 No FAC
4.
5.
6.
80 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 40 20% of total cover: 16
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5
1. Ligustrum sinense
2. Ilex opaca
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
40 Yes FACU
5
No FACU
45 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 23 20% of total cover: 9
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30
1. Toxicodendron radicans 10 Yes FAC
2. Lonicera japonica 10 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5.
20 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 11 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 45.5% (NB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
FAC species 95 x 3 = 285
FACU species 145 x 4 = 580
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
Column Totals: 270 (A) 955 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.54
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1: lipid
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture
0-3 7.5YR 3/3 100
3-10 7.5YR 4/6 100
10-20 7.5YR 4/4 100
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Dep€efon, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
Remarks
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes No X
Remarks-
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastem Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

STREAM REACH EVALUATION FORM
Data Point: 2
Name: Int Strm WA
Date:
Project:
09/27/20
Evaluator:
WEPG
West Blvd Extension: Intermittent Stream WA (DP2)
Easting:
Northing:
-80.97424 W
35.19061 N
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent if > 19 or perennial if > 30*
(right -click the purple number and left -click Update Field to summarize points)
18.5
A. Geomorphology
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
la. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -channel structure: riffle- / step- pool sequence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
1
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
Geomorphology Subtotal
, 10.5.
a Man-made ditches are not rated: see discussion in NCDWQ Manual
B. Hvdrolo
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based Evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
Hydrology Subtotal
5.0
C. Biolo
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW= 0.75, OBL= 1.5, Other= 0
0
Biology Subtotal
3.0
* perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See page 35 of NCDWQ manual
Notes:
Adapted from
Origins.
NCDWQ: Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
(version 4.11)

Plans/Exhibits

0
rn
0
0
009=.1 :31VOS
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC -
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: 1"=600'
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
l
Sheet #:
I OF 10
EXISTING CONDITIONS
373 N Graham Street Oa dare, NC 28202
V: 704 333 0335 0 704 3313346
ww•f aMOealpi.tom

N v
co
r r
-n 71
--I -0
O D
• Z
30- m
X z
n n
0)0)
0 0
. cn
nn
:SlOVdWi 10 r02Id 1V101
Z
0
m
11 [I
(6011 bs) C311 NO1 IOH 'xa
o
10
0
rn
0
0
.009=.. 4 :21VOS
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC -
1DVd W I ON
CO
m O
> 0
3
n�
A Q
m
m m
0
m
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: 1 "=600'
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
LandDesign.
223 N Graham Street Charloru, NC 2E101
V: 701333 0315 F. 709 332 3216
ww66.1andEled),n ram
Sheet #:
2 OF 10
OVERALL SITE PLAN

009 6 :31VOS
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC -
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: 1 "=600'
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
LandDesign
Sheet#:
3 OF 10
BMP PLAN
223 N Graham Street Charlotte NC 22202
V: 704 333,0125 F. 704.312 3216
w+>".LandDea,;n corn

0
0
0
0
rn
-I-0
-10 m" -a K
0 73 --06 OZ
z �m
v 1
09= L :31` OS
-0L9
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC -
II
0)
c)
r
— — 0
Z 999 —
—689--
eF. •
199
999
O 0 -
c0
✓ m
mr
O 0
0v
-09-- 01-2
o� o-4-I
b 00X
om cnTD
nK gym0
Xm
O z m
zm
X mX
-< Z -
-1 Z
R. -m
> D
o 0
-I
CO
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: 1"=60'
Project #: 1018700F
Sheet #:
4 OF 10
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
IardDesgn.
223 N Graham Svecc Orarleve, NC 22202
V: 704 333 0375 F. 701332 3246
...w LangDe.lo corn
INT STREAM IMPACT

V1
0
0
0
h O L= l :31VOS
H .006=..6 :31HOS
cn
0
0)
0
0
0
0
0)
0)
0
0)
0
0)
CO
0)
co
o
0
o
oni
650.78
PROP. 22 L
RAP APROI
I
!
i
655.44 -�
x 7
X
❑
N
f 0
''
}:a
1
1
I
1
1
N
2-
PROP. 16" DIP
WATERMAIN
1
o o
•
ill
N
+
o686.37
E
±
659.05
Li"_rF
re. -14. i.
Sc-ItO
3 -4 — 3
A _
A<: y.. Y'-
[r !�!.-
•+w a 36
:* 8 � 1.r3=�-N'r:
J• 7. ..R and - II[
,-!� f -f. .311i
ma rein •': • •2. A'
•.,�
� H I•%
��
13�-
R'�. Y,
3_ 1_ LA•
1,
m -0
F
w
[3�N
ter.
x S.
i' 0:` 0i.i:
� a•
: 11•t• -a
.de •
- - P.
rl. rl:
val.
•Di A
N 1�•
yr„A sr.
`
,r, .a_•_:
i" iu-Ti!.
.
: .
li .�. • iF i0ygi
R . 2A.�
A . -i+R
._
658.98
'L
DP. 1' OF APPROVED
L MATERIAL
I
^1
_ �-�
-C l.1
/ • ,A-,•
"•L�
�.
. : �.FrytV�
ii--I 1]T ..:�1�; r..yy. ..
r�
161!
.
I5' 1 ''7�' :'��
:N'.I�: .. ...
jf
1
,'
--- .-..
s
" ^.50. r.' TA
ip�l i?.:
,". '�-i •ssF'. _.-i •.rri
s.e Ie e. iy t;n
P i' r�'.�i9%
,r y :.
i:�
11111111111111116-
675.15
-
(PROP, S/LL
N rli 0
1 II
- PROP. HEADWALL
DESIGNED 6Y OTHEF
1f; I
PROP. 18' RCP
STORMW ITER
—$
I
I III
441Lt
O
C(J1 O COJI O
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC-
m
C CO 00 CO
01 O CJ1 O U1 O
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Sheet#:
5 OF 10
CULVERT PROFILE SECTION
223 N Graham Svcs Charlotte, NC 22202
V: 704333.0325 F. 7043323246

0)
cn
670.07 0
0
0
0
+
0
0
N
+
01
0
w
0
0
0)
01
01
0)
0)
0
0)
0)
0)
0
0)
CO
0
0)
0
0
0)
CO
0
685.13
659.84
_.-._.._
-
I
I
-
L.
1
1
.I'
��
��
-
---- t PROP. GRADE © -
ROAD CENTERLINE
7,
I
685.90
661.02
J
�_
III
686.68
667.43
r
223 LF OF 60" RCP
LCULVERT @ 3.32%
687.46
673.08
_--
1
_
I
ii
1\
11 1 I
688.23
co
v,
o
0
w
0
0L
0
H 09 l:MVOS
A ,9=.3 :MVOS
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC-
0)
01
0)
0)
0
CI)
0
rn
v,
CT)
0
0
0)
0
cn
0)
CO
0
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
1
223 N Gnlvm Sven Charlene, NC 20202
V: 704 333 0325 F. 701.3323246
.r»,r veaomgn.com
Sheet #:
6 OF 10
CULVERT CROSS SECTION

T
L
J
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC-
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: NTS
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
LandDesign.
Sheet #:
70F 10
CULVERT SILL DETAIL
213 N Graham Sve, Ouriwc, NC 22202
V: 7013310335 F. 101-332 3116
,...evndoe.;,n.eem

m
r
�1
8
0
m
z
-1
-<
0
0
0L
0
os :�1VOS
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC-
(1) H -u
mxmmmm
mogK<m
�mm0O�z,
rn n
cn
O • c0Dmm
Zn
07
(n '0o
z D=zr
m
0 C 0 0
m O 0
DD0D
✓ 0-o
4\\\*\\,\
\\-\\\\\\Z.\,
c-
m
•
!
0 O
ma '
-0
a
O0D
n mDa �
�oz -- ./. z
F
r-�
✓
m
0
0
C)
0 0 X
m
amm
0mc)
- 0z z
Om
XI-
Xz
m
O
to
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: 1 "=60'
Project #: 1018700F
Sheet#:
8 OF 10
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
LandDesigi
123 N Graham Street Ondor. , NC 26202
V: 704 333 0315 E. 701 311 3246
wwrela"aoeagneem
BEAVERDAM CREEK IMPACT

NOI1O3S WV3211Sdf1
APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC-
rfik
*
{
} "
A
Afe
4%,1
1�
a
Y
�3
A'
a
LA
v� o
NOI1O3S WV32I1SNMO 1
<zZz
•>rn Z<O
O-I3-
aiozc�
Drnoc3m
mxzmx
mxzo3
03- mZ
m 0 —I
r ow
03
m -mm
o D
C M
mp<
N m
xm
Dom
z t
z 2
1
!SOW 3H1
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
LandDeEign
Sheet#:
9 OF 10
DETAILS
223 N Graham Street Charlene. NC 26202
V: 731333 0325 R 7013323246
www landOetl`n.tom

APPLICATION TRACKING NUMBER:
SAC-
ea
TEMPORARY STREAM BANK PROTECTION
WV3S 41 ION
g IF
0
1 4
m
ONISSal0 WV3HIS J.2!`dd0dW31
0
0
En
0 P 0 C tl S F
ONINVIS 3All
9
F.
111
ONINVIS 3All
ss
G
1 � 1
a
11
ill
, r ii Iii ip ii 1 • ° ° - i h 0
ao
liis i d 0 : f1 1' q Ei ' ' l ';
m . c �I $m illy 1 0 i $1 2Q Is 1 g 'E
II 6 111i € li € 1S ! 1 �y
S 9 ;p' x� C€ i 2tt, g+ o 11 E g it
oz ➢ TCT kS bi Y 9 ,1i is ; ja i
i F/ ill i 2.
11911111
2
zm
F A� R
on q 1 1 r i i ;'
wuuU
a IEl Ilg 3 gi
Date: 03/08/2021
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project #: 1018700F
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
LandDesign
223 N Graham Suva Uar1aue. NC 20202
V: 704 333 0325 F. 704 332 3246
was. LaadDa:ign.aam
Sheet#:
IOOF I
DETAILS

Certificate of
Credit Purchase

STORM 600 E. Fourth Street
WATER Services Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]
March 22, 2021
Imad Fakhreddin
City of Charlotte
600 E 4th St
Charlotte, NC 28202
Transmitted via email to Jeff Levi at [e-mail]
Subject Project: West Boulevard Extension
HUC#: 03050101 (Upper Catawba)
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
("Umbrella Bank") is willing to accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project. Please note that the
decision by the Umbrella Bank to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401/Wetlands Unit. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the Umbrella Bank for impacts associated
with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for three months from the date of this letter. The following documents must be submitted to the
Umbrella Bank within this time frame for this acceptance to remain valid:
1. 404 Permit Verification
2. 401 Water Quality Certification
3. Executed Departmental Transfer Invoice (DTI) between Engineering Services and Storm Water Services
detailing the use of and payment for the credits described in the table below.
Based on the information supplied by your office, the wetland credits that are necessary to satisfy the compensatory
mitigation requirements for this project are detailed in the table below. The total mitigation credits available for this project
are also indicated in this table.
Stream
(linear feet)
Wetlands
(acres)
Credits Requested for This Project
484.05
N/A
Credits Available for This Project
484.05
N/A
Mitigation Project Name(s)
Coliseum Creek
Credits Requested for This Project
71.95
N/A
Credits Available for This Project
71.95
N/A
Mitigation Project Name(s)
Glassy Creek
The stream and wetland mitigation will be provided as specified in the Section 404 Permit or corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification for impacts associated with the subject project in Hydrologic Unit 03050101 of the Upper Catawba
Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Agreement to Establish the City of Charlotte Umbrella
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, dated June, 16, 2004.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone] or
erin. Shan aberger@ch arlo ttcn c . gov
Sincerely,
Charlotte Storm Water Services
71//ea d2 On behalf of Erin Shanaberger
Erin Shanaberger, PWS
•
To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
http://stormwater.charmeck.org

Mitigation Bank Administrator
cc: File

O
a
CU
N
CU
�V
CU
a
f:
L
c
c
w
a)
c
• RI
a)
Threatened & Endangered Species
Report

WEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
WEST BOULEVARD EXTENSION
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Land Design
223 N Graham Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
City of Charlotte
600 E 4th Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
By:
Jeff Levi
Biologist
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Field Evaluated: September 2019 & September 27, 2020
March 3, 2021
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetlands-epg.com
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

West Blvd Extension — Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The West Boulevard Extension site is located West of 1-485, north of Garrison
Road, east Dixie River Road, west of Charlotte, in Mecklenburg county, North
Carolina, (Figure 1). It can be found on the Charlotte West USGS Topographic
Quadrangle Map at a latitude of 35.1906 N and longitude of 80.9781 W (Figure
2). The site consists of broad ridges with disturbed pine - hardwood forest types
and forested slopes leading to alluvial forest along Beaverdam Creek and its
tributaries. Upland areas along the broad ridges and upper slopes are disturbed
with a dense understory. The site is bordered by residential homes along
Garrison Road. The topography is moderately to steeply sloped with the
elevation ranging from approximately 620 to 710 feet.
Figure 1
i568.—N61
Ut: 35 19103 TN.1o.e: •80.9718n tW
1 UC:OlOS0702 ilpprr CatrN .II
fWit
1
2019 Aerial Map
WEST .OIA EVAM EZTTN90,4
144ttklerbJg Cev+ta, MC
2O19 MrIM Map - A$Qic irwte lo(rtUa
•
..•
rs:A.
w o..w•
.
Ntv ► Jl•Y
1
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

West Blvd Extension — Threatened / Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 2:.
14CAT14y
•Ili r,�r,•.nu•.11i.-r..rrr.v:r.•i
11:.V11:
2
wur nuuuv u exrekuw4
1d. •:l .rr 4. ;. rr, 1. 1.,'
/'650
kawao• iffiedhr 14C
kursolirmodb
140011114 ID►
w.wRr_
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website https://www.fws.govlraleicjh/species/
cntylist/mecklenburq.html was referenced to determine the potential 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 field investigated in September
2019 and on September 27, 2020.
F �G2
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

West Blvd Extension — Threatened / Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Table 1: Threatened/Endangered/Protected Species listed for Mecklenburg
County
County: Mecklenburg, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on September 3, 2019; September 2021
Group Name Status Record Status
Invertebrate Carolina heelsplitter Endangered Current
(Lasrnigona decorate)
Invertebrate Rusty -patched Bumble Bee Endangered Historic
(Bombus affinis)
Vascular Smooth caneflower (Echinacea Endangered Current
Plants laevioata)
Vascular Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered Current
Plants SHelianthus schweinitzii)
Vascular Michaux's sumac (Rhus Endangered Current
Plants michauxir)
Vertebrate Northern Long -Eared Bat Threatened Probable/Potential
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Vertebrate Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Protected Current
leucocephalus) under the Bald
and Golden
Eagle
Protection Act
WEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Cr-r,r.:p Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
3

West Blvd Extension — Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
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:
• 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.
• 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).
• Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), listed as Federally
Threatened, roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in
crevices of both live and dead trees during summer months. 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.
• Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, typically inhabit forested areas near large
WEPT
4
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

West Blvd Extension — Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
bodies of open water such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers
where there are suitable fish populations and tall trees for nesting and
roosting.
RESULTS:
The site is primarily disturbed pine -hardwood forest along ridges and upper
slopes with a dense understory dominated by invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata). Alluvial forest exists along
Beaverdam Creek. Open canopy communities along Dixie River Road, Garrison
Road, 1-485, agriculture roads, and small field/abandoned lawn edges. Species
lists reflect the seasonality of the survey.
The disturbed pine - hardwood forest has a canopy which includes short -leaf pine
(P. echinata), loblolly pine (P. taeda), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white
oak (Quercus alba), water oak (Q. nigra), red oak (Q. rubra), post oak (Q.
stellate), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The subcanopy supports
black cherry (Prunus serotina), American holly (Ilex opaca), transgressives,
winged elm (Ulmus alata), black walnut (Juglans nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum),
white ash (Fraxinus americana), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), red
mulberry (Morus rubra), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Shrubs
Chinese privet, and autumn olive. The sparse herb layer consists of Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
fireweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius), and Japenese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum). Vines include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), wild grape (Vitis
sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
The alluvial forest has a canopy that supports American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple, sweet gum, elm
(Ulmus spp.), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and yellow poplar. The subcanopy
supports sourwood (Oxydendrum arborea), black cherry, winged elm, American
holly, and transgressives. Shrubs include silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), paw paw (Asimina triloba), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), giant cane (Arundanaria gigantea), and dense areas of autumn olive
and Chinese privet. Vines include Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), and cross vine (Bignonia capreolata). Herbs include
Japanese stilt grass, tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), river oats (Chasmanthium
latifolium), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina
communis), jewelweed (Impatiens sp.), and Christmas fern.
The roadside edges and field edges do not have a traditional canopy as it is
managed by mowing and clearing of woody species. The subcanopy from the
adjacent woodlands include loblolly pine, sweetgum, oak (Quercus sp.), red
maple, and eastern red cedar. Shrubs include Chinese privet, groundsel tree
(Baccharis halimifolia), and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Herbs include goldenrod
WEPG 5
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

west Blvd Extension — Threatened / Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
(Solidago spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), coreopsis (Coreopsis sp.),
bush clover (Lespedeza sp.), sorrel (Oxalis sp.), ebony spleenwort, wild onion
(Aliium sp.), Japanese stilt grass, heal-all (Prunella vulgaris), ragweed (Ambrosia
artemesiifolia), Maryland aster (Chrysopsis mariana), assorted grasses, aster
(Aster sp.), Brazilian vervain (Verbena brasiliensis), resindot sunflower
(Helianthus resinosus), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) Vines include
Japanese honeysuckle and greenbrier.
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
• Streams on site do not appear to have the habitat characteristics required
to support populations of the Carolina heelsplitter, and they have not been
reported to occur in this portion of the watershed. No mussels were
observed during the survey nor would any be expected on -site.
• Comparing this site location to the USFWS Range Map for Rusty -patched
Bumble Bee
(https:Ilwww.fws.govlmidwest/enda ngeredlinsects/rpbblrpbbmap. html )
Mecklenburg County is in it's Historic Range, and as such, Section 7
consultation is not needed. WEPG concludes that Rusty -patched Bumble
Bee is not present.
• All potential habitats for Schweinitz's sunflower, Michaux's sumac and
smooth coneflower along the roadside corridors, and woodland edges
were closely examined and none of these species were observed.
• Comparing our site location to the USFWS Asheville office's website
(http://www.fws.goviasheville/htmislproject review/NLEB in WNC.html) it
appears that the site meets the "exempt" criteria which requires no further
action under section 7 or section 9 of the Endangered Species Act for the
northern long eared bat.
• There is no preferred habitat for bald eagles on the site. No bald eagles
were sighted during the survey nor were any nests or nesting activity
observed.
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

West Blvd Extension — Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the results of the field evaluation the review of available data, we see
no potential for a `Take' to occur to any of the protected species discussed within
this report. 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,
r�}
j fi_i)
r'^
Jeff Levi
Biologist
March 3, 2021
7
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Cultural Resources
Report

I.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]
March 30, 2021
Mr. Jeff Levi
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
Subject: Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance
West Boulevard Corridor and Extensions
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
R.S. Webb & Associates No. 19-649-098
Dear Mr. Levi:
BACKGROUND
During August/September 2019, R.S. Webb & Associates conducted a cultural resources literature
review for the proposed West Boulevard transportation corridor and extensions in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. The study corridor extends from Interstate 485 (I-485) west to Dixie River
Road and includes several peripheral study area extensions (Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of the
literature search was to determine if previously recorded cultural resources are located within the
study corridor. The initial field reconnaissance of the subject corridor was performed on December
20 and 21, 2019; follow-up field reconnaissance was conducted on March 10 and 11, 2021, after
modifications to the original study limits were made. These reconnaissance efforts were designed
to identify obvious cultural resources within the corridor and generally assess potential post -
depositional effects that might have impacted/destroyed cultural resources. For this study, a "cultural
resource" is defined as a discrete area of human activity that is at least 50 years old. Cultural
resources include, but are not limited to, archeological sites, historic structures, military earthworks,
mines/mining features, historic cemeteries, and historic landscape features.
METHODOLOGY
Literature and Records Search: Archival sources and background data on the project vicinity were
gathered from the following repositories:
North Carolina Office of State Archeology (OSA), Raleigh, North Carolina
State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina
The North Carolina Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service (HPOWEB, found at
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/)
North Carolina Maps Project, found at http://www2.lib.unc.edu/dc/ncmaps/.
Records at the OSA, including the official files and maps, were examined, followed by a review of
the pertinent site forms, and manuscript/report files. The HPOWEB GIS database was also used to
confirm the presence or absence of state -recognized historic resources in the project vicinity. At the

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance, West Boulevard Corridor Page 2
March 30, 2021
State Archives, historic maps and aerial photographs were examined for features including trails,
roads, structures, and cemeteries. Historic county maps were also viewed through North Carolina
Maps, a collaboration of the University of North Carolina, the State Archives of North Carolina, and
the Outer Banks History Center.
The following sources were examined to search for historic resources within and adjacent to the
project corridor:
.
.
.
1847 Mitchell Map of North Carolina
1910 USDA Mecklenburg County Soil Map
1911 Commissioner's Map of Mecklenburg County
1912 Post Office Department Map of Mecklenburg County
1938 and 1953 State Highway and Public Works Commission Maps of Mecklenburg County
1938 and 1951 aerial photographs of Mecklenburg County
1983 Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. 1983).
Reconnaissance Field Survey: The field reconnaissance was designed to focus on areas likely to
contain prehistoric and/or historic resources. The Project Archeologist walked transects along the:
1) center of the proposed West Boulevard road corridor and within adjacent areas where
cutting/filling will occur; 2) expanded right-of-way (ROW) of Dixie River Road where it meets the
main proposed corridor; 3) new access road that extends Garrison Road to connect with the proposed
West Boulevard corridor; and 4) acceleration/deceleration ramps along I-485. Survey corridors and
shovel test locations are shown in Figure 2.
At the time of the 2019 field study, the project corridor had been recently cleared and grubbed,
exposing a high percentage of the project corridor surfaces. The extensive exposed surfaces were
examined for artifacts and surface features. Given the high surface visibility (70 to 100 percent) and
the fact that nearly all of the project corridor is in heavily eroded upland settings, surface inspection
was the primary technique used to search for archeological resources. During the 2021 field
reconnaissance, surface visibility was very low and shovel testing was the primary means of
searching for archeological materials. To monitor subsurface conditions, screened shovel tests were
excavated on high probability landforms such as ridge tops, noses and saddles. When slope in
excess of 15 percent was encountered the corridor/study area was walked but no shovel tests were
excavated. Shovel testing involved the excavation of 30-by-30-centimeter (cm) pits and screening
the soils through 0.64-cm hardware cloth; retained materials were inspected for artifacts.
Disturbances, current conditions and detected cultural resources were recorded and photographed,
and their locations plotted on the project map. When observed in the viewshed along the study
corridors, historic structures were photographed, plotted on the project map, and general assessments
of NRHP eligibility status were made.
RESULTS
Previous Archeological Investigations: According to the records on file at the OSA, there have been
numerous cultural resources management projects performed within 1.6 kilometers (km) (1.0 mile)
of the project corridor. At least five of these projects overlapped with, or were within 600 m of, the
project corridor (Figure 1).

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance, West Boulevard Corridor Page 3
March 30, 2021
In 1984, an alternate route for the Charlotte Outer Loop highway bracketed and passed partially
through the project corridor (Hargrove 1984); in 2009 the preferred alternative for the Gaston East-
West Connector also bracketed and passed partially through the project corridor (Bradley et al. 2010)
(Figure 1). These survey boundaries do not appear on official OSA maps, but the boundaries are
shown on site forms for archeological sites identified and recorded in the study vicinity.
In 2004, a project to relocate Wallace Neel Road passed across and along the east portion of the
West Boulevard project corridor (Bamann et al. 2004) (Figure 1). The survey resulted in the
identification of five archeological sites and two isolated finds, all of which were recommended
ineligible for the NRHP. One of these recorded sites, 31MK1054, is located within or near the
current project corridor (Figure 1).
Two large -tract surveys were conducted near the east end of the West Boulevard study corridor,
north and south of Garrison Road (Figure 1). The project to the northeast covered the westward
expansion of Charlotte Airport, which engulfed the Dixie community (Tolonen and Clifford 1998);
the purpose of the project to the southeast is unknown. No survey report documentation was found
or reviewed regarding the latter project. According to the OSA database, no archeological sites were
recorded by either project within 300 m of the current study corridor.
Previous Architectural Investigations: According to SHPO personnel, the North Carolina HPOWEB
database is the definitive source of architectural survey information for Mecklenburg County.
National Register of Historic Places: There is one NRHP-listed historic property located within 1.6
km of the project corridor. The NRHP-listed Steele Creek Presbyterian Church is located
approximately 1,200 m to the southeast (Figure 1).
Mecklenburg County Historic Resources: According to the North Carolina HPOWeb database, there
are 33 previously recorded historic resources located within 1.6 km of the project area. Six historic
resources have been determined eligible and/or have been designated as local landmarks within this
radius. The closest of these NRHP-eligible resources, MK1874, is located approximately 400 m
north-northeast of the study corridor, but according to HPOWEB, this property is no longer present
(Figure 1). Six other historic resources are located within 300 m of the project corridor and four of
these properties (MK2409, MK2410, MK2411, and MK2843) are located within or near the current
project corridor (Figure 1). Resource Nos. MK2410 and MK2411 are designated as "gone" on the
HPOWEB database. Google Earth aerial photography indicates that Resource No. MK2843 was
razed in 2012 or 2013, and Resource No, MK2409 was still standing in early 2019.
Recorded Archeological Sites: According to OSA records, there are a multitude of recorded
archeological sites located within 1.6 km of the West Boulevard study corridor, one of which is
located within 300 m of the project area (Figure 1). Site 31MK1054 consists of historic gold mining
pits or features located partially within or near the project corridor. The site was recommended
ineligible for the NRHP in 2004 (Bamann et al. 2004).
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 with just more than 8,000 troops to conquer North Carolina. Following victory at

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance, West Boulevard Corridor Page 4
March 30, 2021
Camden, South Carolina, the British aimed to occupy Charlotte and restore the Royal government
there. However, resistance to Cornwallis' movement was substantial, and it took his army 17 days
to march the 70 miles from Camden to Charlotte (primarily via Providence Road, eight miles east
of the West Boulevard study corridor). Upon Cornwallis' arrival at 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 (none were located
near the project corridor), Cornwallis abandoned this first attempt to subdue North Carolina, calling
the vicinity a "hornet's nest" of rebellion. Cornwallis retreated to Winnsborough, South Carolina
and again made an attempt at North Carolina the following campaign season (1781); however, in the
second attempt he bypassed the Charlotte area to the west and north. An event of Cornwallis' second
attempt was the battle of Cowan's Ford, approximately 15 miles north of the project corridor, which
was fought on February 1, 1781 (Lewis 2011; Powell 1989).
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 (Davis et al. 1983).
Historic Cemeteries: Historic maps and aerial photographs show no cemeteries located within at
least 800 m (0.5 mile) of the current project corridors.
Structures on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs: Historic maps and aerial photographs indicate
that the system of secondary roads through and around the project corridor remained relatively
constant throughout the 20th century. The 1910 USDA soil map depicts an extension of Garrison
Road trending westward of, and parallel (south) to the study corridor. This historic route began and
ended at essentially the same points as the proposed corridor, but it arched southward. Near the apex
of the road curve was a northward route giving access to two structures located in and near the study
corridor (Figure 1). Aerial photographs taken in 1951 show a similar distribution of structures, but
the portion of the historic route located west of this intersection had fallen from use by that time.
The 1951 aerial photographs also show that the proposed West Boulevard corridor was almost
entirely under cultivation. Historic county maps produced after 1930 do not show the westward
extension from Garrison Road or any additional structures located within or near the study corridor.
Field Reconnaissance
Land Use: Figures 1 and 2 show that the West Boulevard corridor traverses several ridge spurs
trending east -west with substantial slopes. On the west end of the study corridor, ridges bracket the
project corridor crossing of Beaverdam Creek, which is bound on both sides by a narrow floodplain.
At the east end of the corridor, the land has been significantly cut and graded to accommodate
acceleration/deceleration ramps at the I-485/West Boulevard interchange. The proposed Garrison
Road/West Boulevard connector corridor (north -south) traverses a gentle, wooded ridge crest.
Elevations in the study corridors range from 204 m above mean sea level (AMSL) in the floodplain
of Beaverdam Creek to 226 m AMSL, on a high ridge east of the creek.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance, West Boulevard Corridor Page 5
March 30, 2021
Soil units within the survey corridors include Cecil sandy clay loam (2 to 15 percent slopes), Enon
sandy loam (8 to 15 percent slopes), Helena sandy loam (2 to 8 percent slopes), Monacan loam (0
to 2 percent slopes), Pacolet sandy loam (15 to 45 percent slopes), and Wilkes loam (15 to 45 percent
slopes) (Natural Resources Conservation Services 2020) (Figure 3). Only 5.5 percent of the project
area is composed of alluvial soils (Monacan loam); the remaining soils are found in eroded upland
settings. Field observations demonstrate that the project corridors have been subjected to harsh land
use practices related to repetitive cultivation, severe erosion, logging and more recently, clearing and
grubbing. Shallow A -horizon soils and clay subsoil at the surface indicated ground disturbance
through agriculture and logging followed by severe erosion.
The project corridors were reconnoitered by walking the full length of each proposed study corridor
(and extensions) to inspect exposed surfaces for cultural materials and seek out undisturbed areas
with a high probability of containing subsurface archeological resources. Because of recent clearing
and grubbing of the West Boulevard corridor, disturbed clayey soils were obvious just below
scattered woody rubble; the corridor is surrounded by hardwood/pine forest (Photos 1-3). The
expanded Dixie River Road ROW has been disturbed by highway construction and road ditch
maintenance (Photo 4). The extension of Garrison Road traverses a young, planted pine forest; much
of this corridor runs through rutted/rowed and volunteer pine trees along with some hardwoods
(Photos 5 and 6). Study areas at the I-485 interchange are clear of vegetation (Photos 7 and 8).
Twenty-eight shovel tests were excavated within the proposed West Boulevard corridor (n=12) and
along the proposed Garrison Road -West Boulevard connector (n=16) (Figure 2). No artifacts were
discovered during shovel testing. Excluding scattered/redeposited middle to late 20' century debris,
no artifacts were noted on surfaces within the study corridors. No shovel tests were excavated on
slopes exceeding 15 percent or in the wet, narrow floodplain of Beaverdam Creek. Shovel testing
confirmed a highly eroded plowzone all along the project corridor and exposed profiles of 5 to 24
cm of loam, sandy loam, sandy clay loam or clay loam plowzone over clay or sandy clay subsoil
(Table 1).
Archeological Resources: No prehistoric sites were recorded during the current field reconnaissance.
A single previously recorded site was reported to be within the project corridor. Site 31MK1054,
described only as gold mining pits, could not be relocated within the project corridor; however, fairly
significant disturbance was observed in the recorded vicinity of the mining pits (Photo 9).
Historic Architecture: Historic aerials and maps indicate the locations of four structures within or
adjacent to the project corridor (Figure 2). Resource No. 1 is located near the western project
terminus, east-southeast of the intersection of the boulevard corridor and Dixie River Road; it is the
location of recorded structure MK2843. This resource has been razed and the ground leveled (Figure
2; Photo 10). Resource No. 2 is near the center of the boulevard corridor on the ridge east of
Beaverdam Creek; this pole barn/agricultural shed has been razed/removed (Figure 2; Photo 11).
Resource No. 3 is on the southeast side of the intersection of the proposed Garrison Road -West
Boulevard connector; the structure at this location has been razed, and is currently rubble (Figure 2;
Photo 12). Just to the south, within the connector corridor off of Garrison Road, sits the only
standing structure observed during the current study, Resource No. 4. Aerial photography review
places the construction of this small ranch -like dwelling between 1956 and 1960. The house has
been abandoned for some time; the roof is failing and some windows have been removed (Figure

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance, West Boulevard Corridor Page 6
March 30, 2021
2; Photos 13 and 14). One post-1978 modem building is standing at the east terminus of the
proposed West Boulevard corridor, west of the I-485 interchange. Since this structure is not historic
it was not assessed.
The three former structure locations (Resource Nos. MK2843/1, 2 and 3) are considered ineligible
for the NRHP because no standing architecture remains at these sites. The standing middle 20t-
century structure at Resource No. 4 is abandoned and the roof is failing; this property is
recommended ineligible for the NRHP.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Historic and archeological survey records indicate extensive study of the area including and
surrounding the current project corridors. As a result, four recorded historic house site locations
(Resource Nos. MK2409-MK2411 and MK2843) and one recorded historic archeological mining
site (31MK1054) were determined to be located within or near the West Boulevard project corridor.
Three of the four buildings have been razed/destroyed and the archeological site has been disturbed
to the extent that it could not be relocated. Resource No. 2409 is still standing but will not be
adversely impacted by the proposed project.
One standing middle-20th-century ranch -like dwelling (Resource No. 4) was recorded within the
project corridor boundary, but is considered ineligible for the NRHP. The remains of three other
structures (Resource Nos. MK2843/1, 2 and 3) were located within or near the study corridor;
however, these properties have been razed/removed. These resources are considered ineligible for
the NRHP.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Levi, 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
iiii //I(
Robert S. (Steve) Webb
President and Senior Principal Archeologist
Attachment: Figures 1-3; Photos 1-14; Table 1
REFERENCES
Bamann, S.E., D. Baicy, and L. Lautzenheiser
2004 Archeological Identification Survey Proposed Relocation of Wallace Neel Road,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro,
North Carolina.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance, West Boulevard Corridor Page 7
March 30, 2021
Bradley, D.M., B. Hall, L. Lautzenheiser, R. Patterson and S.E. Bamann
2010 Archeological Survey and Evaluation of Detailed Study Alternative 9 (Recommended
Route) Proposed Gaston East-West Connector, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties,
North Carolina. North Carolina Department or Transportation, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
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.
Hargrove, T.H.
1984 Unknown Report Title (Charlotte Outer Loop Survey). Archaeological Research
Consultants, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lewis, J.D.
2011 The American Revolution in North Carolina. Internet -Online. Found at:
http://www.carolana.com /NC/Revolution/. Accessed September 2019.
Natural Resources Conservation Services
2020 Web Soil Survey. Website at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/
WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January/March 2021
Powell, W.S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill and London.
Tolonen, A, and L. Clifford
1998 Phase I Cultural Resource Report, Proposed Charlotte -Douglas International Airport
Expansion, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Environment and
Archaeology, Inc. Verona, Kentucky.

L.
MK2843
(No Longer
Present)
31MK1106/ .-
'MK137.0
'.i I,
Bradley et al.
(2010)
Hargrove
• • .I (1984)
:• '
••
"••C
i
• • :•
r .. :.l .
i.'. Bamann et al.
(2004)
▪ r
MK2410
(No Longer
Present)
31MK1054
-i :v. is E. r !ram {. r^
A Structure on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs!
❑ Recorded Historic Resource*
•Recorded Archeological Site*
* Some historic resources not referenced in text
• ' MK2409
MK2411
(No Longer
Present)
Map Reference: 7.5-Minute USGS Quadrangle
Charlotte West (1993), NC
Unknown 1'
',Project '
• r •
1, :1
• Tolonen aria
'Cliffoed MK1373
(1998) (Determined
MK1874 • k Eligble-No
(Determined 'Longer
Eligble=No Present)
Longer" •
' MK
2490
Present)
(Deter
mined
ined
Eligble=No
" Longer
a' Present)._
!r,, MK1368.
(Herron
House) .
NRHP-listed'•
Sl+r •jSteele•Creek '
t Church
•
Determined 1f ^ •
Eligible
`°Byrum -Craft!
House
-- Road on 1910 Soil Map
Previous Cultural Resource Project
Scale
0 610 meters
0 2000 feet
Figure 1 Project Area and Cultural Resources Location Map

Figure 2 Survey Coverage and Cultural Resources Location Map
Map Reference: Land Design (2019)
co
❑ ■ O
u,
z
O
crq
co
ry
b
co
co
may.
;uasaid `ainipui1S
antge2ON `;sal, lanoTS
iM1
•
•
?11.4;:1ill1.;
•

f
Photo 1 - Cleared Corridor on Ridge Nose West of Beaverdam Creek, Facing West Along
Proposed West Boulevard Corridor
Photo 2 - Cleared Corridor on Ridge Nose West of Beaverdam Creek, Facing East Along
Proposed West Boulevard Corridor

Photo 3 - Cleared Corridor Near Center of Proposed West Boulevard Corridor, Facing East
Photo 4 - Ditch Maintenance Along Dixie River Road, Facing West -Northwest

Photo 5 - From Existing Garrison Road Along Proposed Garrison Road Extension
Corridor, Facing North -Northwest
Photo 6 - Proposed Garrison Road Extension Corridor, Facing West

Photo 7 - I-485/West Boulevard Interchange, Facing East
Photo 8 - Garrison Road at I-485/West Boulevard Interchange, Facing West

Photo 9 - Location of Site 31MK1054, North of Proposed West Boulevard Corridor, Facing West
Photo 10 - Location of Historic Resource MK2843/Resource No. 1, Razed and Leveled, Facing Southeast

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2021-00703 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Charlotte West
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail:
Size (acres)
Nearest Waterway
USGS HUC
City of Charlotte
Imad Fakhreddin
600 E. 4th Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-634-9650
iakhreddin(i ci.charlotte.nc. us
40 Nearest Town Charlotte
Beaverdam Creek River Basin Santee
03050101 Coordinates Latitude: 35.19108
Longitude: -80.97184
Location description: The review area is located on the north side of Garrison Road; between Dixie River Road and I-485.
Reference review area description shown in Pre -Construction Notification entitled "Figure 2, Vicinity Map" and dated
02/24/21.
Description of projects area and activity: This verification authorizes the permanent stream impacts of 277 linear feet (0.03
acres) and 127 linear feet of temporary stream impacts to facilitate the expansion of a roadway which extends from West
Boulevard from 1-485 to Dixie River Road and re-routing of Garrison Road to West Boulevard. AU temporary stream impacts
will be restored to pre-existing conditions after the completion of construction.
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
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 4/1/2021, and the enclosed plans Construction Drawings. Sheets 1-9 dated
3/8/2021. 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.rodeo-reynolds{A],usace.army.mil.

Corps Regulatory Official:
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.army.mil/em_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
2021.04.05 14:45:19 -04'00'
Copy furnished:
Agent: Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Jeff Levi
Address: 10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28227
Telephone Number: 828-699-3697
E-mail: ief .levi{u wetlands-epg.com
Date: 04/05/2021

SAW-2021-00703
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-2021-00703 County: Mecklenburg
Permittee: City of Charlotte, Imad Fakhreddin
Project Name: West Boulevard Extension
Date Verification Issued: 04/05/2021
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

SAW-2021-00703
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: City of Charlotte, !mad Fakhreddin
1.2 Activity Iocation:Latitude: 35.19108 Longitude: -80.97184 Location description: The review
area is located on the north side of Garrison Road; between Dixie River Road and 1-485.
Reference review area description shown in Pre -Construction Notification entitled
"Figure 2, Vicinity Map" and dated 02/24/21.
1.3 Description of activity requiring verification:This verification would authorize the permanent
stream impacts of 277 linear feet (0.03 acres) and 127 linear feet of temporary stream
impacts to facilitate the expansion of a roadway which extends from West Boulevard
from 1-485 to Dixie River Road and re-routing of Garrison Road to West Boulevard. All
temporary stream impacts will be restored to pre-existing conditions after the
completion of construction.
1.4 Is this an After -the -Fact verification? No.
1.5 Date PCN determined complete for processing: 4/5/2021
1.6 Jurisdiction Determination completed? A Preliminary JD was completed on 4/5/2021.
1.7 Permit authority: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344)
1.8 Applicable Permit: NWP 14. Linear Transportation Projects
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 Toss 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

SAW-2021-00703
be further reduced through the implementation of BMPs required by state, local, and
Federal ordinances and regulations.
2.2 Site specific factors: The review consists mostly of a disturbed mixed pine -hardwood
forest with surrounding light residential.
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.
2.4.3 Type and location of compensatory mitigation
Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank? Yes.
If yes, does the mitigation bank have appropriate number and resource type of credits
available? Yes.
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
X
In -lieu fee program credits

SAW-2021-00703
Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
Permittee-responsible mitigation, on -site and in -kind
Permittee-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 ye, p€ 'LP/RAC a eC I €cfC Iui li iC 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: 556 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 (i.e., North Carolina Stream
Assessment Methodology) to determine the current quality of the impacted streams.
Therefore, the Corps assumes the impacted streams (i.e., Streams WA and WB) are high
quality aquatic features and determined the compensatory mitigation ratio (i.e., 2:1)
accordingly.
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:
NAME: Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) STATUS: Threatened
NAME: Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) STATUS: Endangered
NAME: Rusty -patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) STATUS: Endangered
NAME: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) STATUS: Endangered
NAME: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) STATUS: Endangered
NAME: Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) STATUS: Endangered
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 no protected species located within or in the vicinity of the action area.
The Corps has determined the proposed activity will not directly or indirectly affect any
species subject to the ESA.
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"

SAW-2021-00703
(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 April 5, 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 and aerial photographs, there are no
known historic properties located in the permit area or in close proximity to the permit
area.

SAW-2021-00703
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.
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.

SAW-2021-00703
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.
PREPARED BY:
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
2021.04.05 14:44:51
-04'00'
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Date: p4/05/2021

Compensatory Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form
Permittee: City of Charlotte, Imad Fakhreddin Action ID: SAW-2021-00703
Project Name: West Boulevard Extension 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: 03050101, Catawba River Basin
Stream Impacts (linear feet)
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riparian Riverine 1 Riparian Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Coastal
278
*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: 03050101, Catawba River Basin
Stream Mitigation (credits)
Wetland Mitigation (credits)
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riparian Riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Coastal
556
Mitigation Site Debited: City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank (Coliseum Creek and Glassy
Creek) (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 Narne:
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 City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank,
confirming they are willing and able to accept the applicant's compensatory mitigation responsibility, dated 3/22/2021 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:
USACE Field Office:
Email:
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Charlotte Regulatory Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
[e-mail]
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
2021.04.05 14:41:53-04'00'
04/05/2021
USACE Project Manager Signature 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

SNOIlIGNOD DNIISIX3
9YLE ifE IO1 SZEO'EEf IOL A
ZOLHL DNwN°h N E[L
ffiksolargieri
3110M1VH0 3O J1110
VNI1O IV3 H12:ION '311O12JVH0
NOISN31X3 abvn311108 1S3M
6JOI
:# laa4S
d00L9 I. :# 1°afad
009=. :ale°S
I Z0Z/90/C0 :a;ea
I i
0 --
_ i ' --
co op
II Q
2 u
W
� W ': , Z a°
I— J W N
W 1I.
1 H
}Z
;rT
-OVS
: I39WIlN ON NOLLVOIlddV
SCALE: 1 "=600'
0 300' 600'

NVId 311S 1Tv113A0
91,ZE ZEE EOL SEEO EEE OL ,A
7AWE JN...PM wa'8 wryu., N ECL
ugPaciPueri
311O11JVH0 3O A110
VNI1021V0 H12ION `311O12IVH0
NOISN31X3 dbVA31f1O9 1S3M
630Z
# lea4S
dOOL8 L01 .# ypafoad
,000=.1. :oleos
1.ZOZ/80l£0 :ales
-OVS
:8391,1f1N ONINOVNL NO1LVOIlddV
SCALE: 1 "=600'
lMrIMMIMM
0 300' 600'
ce}
W
0
QQo
oa
J in I—
= < W
Na-J
cc E 0
0—i-
U
d �
W
O
a
wZH
OOwW
ZUf-0
TOTAL PROJECT IMPACTS:
Q • Q
71-3
O O
• O
U)
I- I-
Q Q
0_ 0_
1—>-
z IY
wz
2O
W
Ce
• I-
LL LL
J J
N
1465
EX. HORTON RD (SR k 149)
;1

NVId dkJ
w 91ZE ZEE IOEA SEED EEE ML 'A
ZOZdZ DN'O4<<D flE we4uD N EZZ
taPacrpaga
31101�1VH0 3O A110
VNI102:1VO HTON `311O1:1VH0
NOISN31X3 aviminoa 1S3M
EX. HORTON RD (SR 1149)
6JOE
'# 1aa4S
d00L131.0L :#loafoad
.009=,, :91e0S
1Z0Z/90/£0 :01%3
-OVS
:139Wf1N ONINOVdl NOIlVOIlddV
SCALE: 1 "=600'
En V)
<<0
cn
cn
En i
CFO
O-I—
Ua'•
d �
O
w
a
00wLL
zUI—O

lDVdWI 14`13111S INI
9KELEE NIL :A SLED EECYOL A
WL6L 3NN ELL
31101IVHO 3O ADO
VNI102:VO H1210N `311O12 WHO
NOISN31X3 42IVA31f1O8 1S3M
6dOb
1eegs
dOOL9LOL '#pefad
09=.L :eleo9
LZOZ/90/£0 :e1e0
vi
d Q
w 0
Q Q o
I_ ;
J N
= V W
En d J
�E0
0-I-
U
O W
oW
LA-
ZOoI-O
—656
Pililtl3.1
-OHS
Zl391A1f1N SND1OHal NOLLHOIlddV
SCALE: 1 "=60'
1

9KC ZEE IOLWA SIN En YOL A
iAi6C ]NN Ea
NOI173S 31I4O11d lb3nlfl7
6 JO S
:# laa4S
311O12iVHO 3O A110
VNI1O2IVO H12:ION `311O1IVH0
NOISN31X3 OE dVA31f1O8 1S3M
d00LB 60I. :# loafajd
NMOHS SV mien
1.Z0Z/80/£0 :ele0
m 0 0 •
N CD0 73 a co
O] C.. CO 00
CD
Q000co
I- rnco�
re
re re Et
N N (0 O-
co co CO
CD CO CD CD CD CO
N
W 10
0_ ix
o1
3r
1
! I , 1.1 )1
E F IAi !
9b•5L9
-I
i-i
cc
reili
- ..�0
1 •�
N r
1
1
I. _.
- o
_..
86'899
FE
l
ECw171
'�
� .:
�3'
al
E
e�i�
a ,s�f:�
� O
-
.. 1.}.
a. S�} .-'� !. sE..
q
.r l S 1::=,, ;:. 4
�i
YG 1
a .
I7 y. 1 9
9V VL7
`,,.E,.,F7'it
-'
4...•v%..
s,„rya%
- .
ifaI•�-
- __•
_ _:, }p
•� : i" ic}. A.
Ibb .,x6 leriffl.
_[1h:.' :
41"
r_. Gi:131'
ec c
.12•1�,y
N '.[•L'::u-•:
-i:
u c i•i..
L. :.,::i'L
is ly
•
c4
•[y� ... "4 t
r_
?r�F _
17..
.I---
- ..
1
- r. :. '7a
;ti _ '
o
_
H
tP. le
%TER
- -
W ei Z 1kg
°.wr
._.....
1=11
l •
PROP. 22 LI
} RAP APROf
1I li1
2E099
—
CD CC) CO CO CO CD CD CO
-OVS
21391Nf1N ON NOLLVOIlddV
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
SCALE: 1"=100' H
SCALE: 1 "=10' V

NOI1D3S SSO'ID 1l13A1f1D
6AO9
:# LeeLIS
wartlisaupurpodr.
91,717.EE FOG SEED EEEYOL A
LOEHL 3N .2.1.47 N ECC
31101?:IVH3 3O A110
VNflO 13 H12ION '311012IVHO
NOISN31X3 42IVA31f1O9 1S3M
dOOL8 L0 L :# pafaJd
NMOHS SV :ate
LZOZ/80/E0 :NBC
CD
CO
CD
O
o
CO
11�
co
O
(0
11i
CfD
CO
O
CO
co
-3VS
:83901 1N OND13V2i1 NOLLVOIlddV
SCALE: 1"=6' V
SCALE: 1"=60' H
O
11')
£Z'889
E-
\
I
!_ill
80'£L9
9t-L89
I
i j
RADE a
NTERUNE
I
£b'L99
89.989
•- Z0' I.99
06'989
_ma_—
I
PROP GRADE
i
E
E
i78'699
£ 6'989
—
,.
f
00
C0
O
co
C0
LO
r`
CD
O
ti
CD
CD
CD
O
CO
CD
C0
O
O
M
O
+
CV
O
O
CV
O
O
O
O LuUL3
L)
c0

1DVdNI )13311D Wva'd Av38
w,i7�sappur7-
51,ZELEE OLwSZEOEEE70L "A
ZOZBZ JN'�I D -'5 ws4�+E1 N ELZ
-tispaQPute'I
311011:IVHO JO ADO
VNI102:IVO H11:1ON '31101 1VHO
NOISN31X3 abYA31f108 1S3M
6 JO L
:# laa4S
dOOL8101 :# loa1o)d
:01e3S
1.ZOZ/80/£0 :elea
vi
(n
aC a
W
<<0
Z
E 0 Q
En I-
J
W
2
v) d
CFO
0 •
U�En
0
O
w
HZ
0OwW
ZUHO
-OVS
:N32V f1N ONINOV211 NOLLVOIlddV
SCALE: 1 "=60'
\\
C \
\ \ - -
\ �-
Z I-
-LY/ a W Q
rY
cc o \ i W CO-
I-00
Z
d
oa
dam
} W d 2
JQ >-iZ EA
w a0uow\
\ ` \ D wwa°Wi
1 — -_� �a220w
w w w W d' W
/ . - Ili o_mHbmcn
�- - \ • I
t
4.
iii
it
w
0
0
Z
v7
v7
0
cc
0
0
W

SlIVl34
6308
worWryappue7w.vw.
9YiE LFE OL • SEED ECM/ A
mug 7Nwe4LID N ER
TAsecipueri
311012IVHO AO MAO
VNI1M:IVO H12jON `31101 IVHO
NOISN31X3 a'lvn311108 1S3M
dOOL81.O1. :#loofojd
NMOHS SV :alen
LZOZ/80/SO :elea
m
0
2
w
x
F
0
0
w
1-
2
J
Z W O co
Q Q W 0
rocaLal-
-W0u=ir
W ▪ OH(O<
I- < U)
Z0-
w—OZ<
Q
OYOO ELZ
ZQ'ZZ— W
ir0-R g
d • W O d
w w Li, W 2 U
F=wa HFW
Z -<E— Na
0 �Y
DOWNSTREAM SECTION
FP
F
0-0
At CM
1
-OVS
;d39Wf1N OND1OVal_ NOLLVOIlddV

9FZCZErMC a GL[OEifYOL n
ZOZHZ 7N'w^4'D .a+K w 1' 5 N EZZ
Sl IV13a
6d06
triksaameri
311012:1VHO 3O A110
VNI10MIVO H12ION `311012IVHO
NOISN31X3 a2Ivn311108 1S3M
d00L9601 :#loa1wd
NMOHS SV :ate
I2O /90/£0 :ele0
a , r y y t
_', II i b
e
e e i ; I 1 Ia # 8 11
q
I Ii Ig i! i 1,. w !'
1 11. a li
tg r
I i i b1 6I 1 1 3 1!;i ? 1 1 it
1 al 11 11! ;III 11 i
1 FI e y ii E 3!` 4 01116
I-
I
2 y i n
e � 21 pi li r � .i � � 2
! � I . - Pt ! 1, Iii 1 v ii ±li ±i 11 � i 1,
LIVE STAKING
111
n
L
jYf
2
a
5
8
y�
E
E
Q
LIVE STAKING
11
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
NOT TO SCALE
TEMPORARY STREAM BANK PROTECTION
-OVS
ZI39Wf1N ONDIOVdJ NO1LVOIIddV
0 IL
W
OW2 U OO
m<W < F0
O2mit 01—
J w OW
2.aN m CO
P 2MO
Z 0 U„
om W2ma
O W ce W- D J
1-W} W00
m2' ❑ma
F
w6w
Q:wa_aa=v¢
aa• 1rn-Ei�Fu-
W Z J Z Z Z W
05E-inaZ50W
w 2
0 w 1— z
Z �Ucv.oi0aw

Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ® There are waters on the above described project area 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). 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. Please note, if
work is authorized by either a general or nationwide permit, and you wish to request an appeal of an approved JD, the appeal must
be received by the Corps and the appeal process concluded prior to the commencement of any work in waters of the United States
and prior to any work that could alter the hydrology of waters of the United States.
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area 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 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.
C. ❑ There are waters within the above described project area that are 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.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued DATE. Action ID: FILE NUMBER.
Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination form dated 04/05/2021.
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 jurisdiction determinations as indicated in B and C
above).
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdiction 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
Phone: [phone]
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.**
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Corps Regulatory Official: 2021.04.05 14:41:06-04'00'
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Date of JD: 04/05/2021
Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: City of Charlotte, Imad Fakhreddin File Number: SAW-2021-00703 Date: 04/05/2021
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
0
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION
Additional
or the
I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal
information may be found at or hr p://www.usace.army.millMissionsICivi1Works/RegulatoryProeramandPermits.aspx
of the above decision.
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
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
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process.
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investi
and any government
You will be provided a 15-day
ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds, 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 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 04/05/2021
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: City of Charlotte, Imad Fakhreddin, 600 E.
4th Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, West Boulevard Extension,
SAW-2021-00703
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the
north side of Garrison Road; between Dixie River Road and 1-485. Reference review area description shown
in Pre -Construction Notification entitled "Figure 2, Vicinity Map" and dated 02/24/21.
(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: 35.19108 Longitude: -80.97184
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Beaverdam Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 04/05/21
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Feature
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 WA
35.19061
-80.97424
364 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
Stream WB
35.19044
-80.97425
88 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
Stream WC
35.18997
-80.97925
258 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
Beaverdam
Creek
35.19003
-80.9808
325 linear 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:
®Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figures 1-9
M Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Datasheets:
M Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑USGS NHD data:
❑USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps:
M U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Figures 4 and 5, USGS Map (7.5-minute
g uadrangle Charlotte West, NC)
®Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure 6, NRCS Published Soils Map (Soil
Survey of Mecklenburg County Dated 1980) and Figures 7a-7c, NRCS Web Soil Survey Map (Web Soil Survey
of Mecklenburg County)
MNational wetlands inventorymap(s). Cite name: Figure 8, National Wetland Inventory Map (USFWS NWI
Mapper)
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: M Aerial (Name & Date): Figures 1-1a, Approximate Wetland Map (Dated 03/24/21), Figure 2,
Vicinity Map (Dated 02/24/21), and Figure 3, 2019 Aerial Map (Bing Maps)
or M Other (Name & Date): Photographs 1-10a (Dated 07/14/19)
❑Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
M Other information (please specify): Figure 9, Tax Parcel Map (Dated 03/31/21)

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps
and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
2021.04.05 14:40:39
-04'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
04/05/2021
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
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.

ZOZSZ JN 'a13oIJegJ
laDfIS wegtJ9 N EZZ
u2lsad puei
:Jo} paJedaJd
lVf/Vfd
uw) 8da-sp nepiNemm.+
LLid-i•O6 i140
unaa Nft0-Muir 101
D'fd 'S pmwol
dnuxO Benwey IFtuo�uuaiwu3 Nor un' P M
k -vgallacE Nye t
uni SSbfD1030714; 33t,5/1 13.7Rgrg
qu sa$oAJnil pun Joj
dVIN aNV113M 31VWIXOaddV
7N Awn op J nquoI=IDDI' i
NOISN31X3 a2IVA31f1O8 1S3M
9 -1Pk3
AH JauuI
--AH ia;np 5$ti I' 5�� AH Ja;nO.S o
2
d

Sean Schuttler
From: Miller, Jordan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 3:34 PM
To: Sean Schuttler; Fakhreddin, Imad
Cc: Dale Stewart
Subject: West Blvd Extension PCSO Approval
Sean/Imad,
This email is to confirm approval of the stormwater management plan for the subject project in compliance with the City
of Charlotte Post -Construction Stormwater Ordinance (PCSO). The planting plan for the SCMs will be approved
subsequently and prior to construction completion.
Thanks,
Jordan
Jordan B. Miller, PE
Post -Construction Stormwater Ordinance Administrator
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
City of Charlotte 1 600 East 4th Street 1 Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone] I [e-mail] 1 StormWater.CharMeck.org
cawxmma.w��w**rw��a
WATER
(CO)
1