20220672 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20220514

Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
OO Yes
O No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
OYes 0No
Change only if needed.
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
4/14/2022
BIMS # Assigned*
20220672
Is a payment required for this project?*
0 No payment required
O Fee received
O Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
Version#*
What amout is owed?*
O $240.00
0 $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Doug Perez:eads\djperez
la. Name of project:
Vermillion Villages
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Heath Caldwell
lb. Primary Contact Email:*
heath .caldwel [e-mail]
Date Submitted
5/14/2022
Nearest Body of Water
South Prong Clarke Creek
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.4149
A. Processing Information
Longitude:
-80.8381
lc. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Mecklenburg
Is this a NCDMS Project
0Yes ONo
Is this project a public transportation project?*
0Yes ONo

la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
EI Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
O Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
0 Yes
O No
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
O Nationwide Permit (NWP)
0 Regional General Permit (RGP)
0 Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
0Yes ®No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
EO 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
0 Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
0 Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
29 - Residential Developments
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
If. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
O Yes O No
O 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
0 Riparian Buffer Authorization
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
O Yes O No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
O Yes O No
lh. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
O Yes O No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
OYes 0No
B. Applicant Information
0Yes ONo
OYes 0No
Id. Who is applying for the permit?
O Owner O Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
OYes 0No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Vermillion Anchor Mill Village LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
Nate Bowman
2d. Address
Street Address
13815 Cinnabar Place
Address Line 2
City
Huntersville
Postal / Zip Code
28078
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA

2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Heath Caldwell
4b. Business Name:
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
4c. Address
Street Address
10612-D Providence Road
Address Line 2
PMB 550
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28277
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
Huntersville
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
01902202, 01902201
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Postal / Zip Code
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
South Prong Clarke Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030401050101
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
29.43
State / Province / Region
Country
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: *
The site is located in a semi -urban setting located just south of 4th Street, southwest of Glendale Drive, east of N. Church Street, and north of Huntersville-Concord Road, in Huntersville,
NC. There is a disturbed former industrial site on the northern portion and wooded slopes on the southern portion. The elevation is approximately 750-800 ft.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
0 Yes O No O Unknown

4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.152
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
685
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The proposed residential development will include one road crossing for site access.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
Fill and grading of the site will use standard equipment, excavator, dump truck, track hoe, etc.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas? *
!, Yes O No
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? *
Preliminary ;? Approved J Not Verified - Unknown G N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2016-01916
Sc. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Nic Nelson
WEPG
0 Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
This site was verified by B. Roden -Reynolds (USACE) on 12/7/17. A copy of the signed JD approval is included in the Jurisdictional Information Information section.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
0 Yes O No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
O Wetlands OO Streams -tributaries
J Open Waters 0 Pond Construction
3. Stream Impacts
0 Buffers
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type*
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name*
3e. Stream Type*
(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction*
3g. S. width
3h. Impact
length*
S1
Road Crossing/Utility
Permanent
Culvert
Stream J
Intermittent
Corps
3
Average (feet)
33
(linear feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
33
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
33
3j. Comments:
S1- 0.002 AC, including headwall
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
0
1. Avoidance and Minimization

1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Impacts associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection, design, and location/orientation of the proposed lots and access
routes. The proposed impact was driven by existing utility infrastructure and fulfilling roadway connectivity requirements. The applicant has
demonstrated avoidance and minimization efforts by avoiding -94.7% of onsite streams and 100% of onsite wetlands.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize impacts to onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances.
The maximum allowable headwalls will be used to minimize crossing impacts.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
O Yes O No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Due to limited site impacts, no mitigation is proposed.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
O Yes No
If no, explain why:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
OYes @No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
OYes 0No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater program?
O Yes O No
0 N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply:
O Local Govemment 0 State
Local Government Stormwater Programs
OO Phase II 0 NSW 0 USMP O Water Supply
Please identify which local government stormwater program you are using.
Mecklenburg County
Comments:
Storm water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has not yet been submitted to Mecklenburg County but will be designed to meet their
criteria.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
O Yes O No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)7*
O Yes O No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
OYes •,No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No additional phases proposed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)

4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
(it, Yes No N/A
4b. Describe, in detail, the treatment methods and dispositions (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project. If the wastewater will be treated at a
treatment plant, list the capacity available at that plant.
Wastewater generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via sewer lines.
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
Yes • No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
• Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
0 Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
0 Yes • No
0 No Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
• Yes No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
Yes • No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
Yes • No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
0Yes ®No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
A threatened and endangered species assessment was conducted in which no species were identified. Habitat may occur for the Northern long-eared
bat but the project is except as described in the attached T&E report. A copy of the FWS MANLAA determination is attached.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Yes • No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
No essential fish habitat in this region.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
Yes • No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
SHPO's website: https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/
Report from R.S. Webb & Associates
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
Yes • No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
www.fema.gov
https://polaris3g.mecklenburgcountync.gov/
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Vermillion Village PCN.pdf 8.04MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
A complete PCN package is attached.
Signature

[si By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Heath Caldwell
Signature
tgriAcla aila re G
Date
5/14/2022

DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request- Vermillion Villages
1 message
Amber Lipsky <[e-mail]>
To: "Perez, Douglas J" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Heath Caldwell <[e-mail]>, Daniel Kuefler <[e-mail]>
Good morning Doug,
Please see below/attached for our Pre -Filing information.
Amber Lipsky <[e-mail]>
Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 9:33 AM
Contact Name: Heath Caldwell
Contact Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Owner: Vermillion Anchor Mill Village LLC
Project Name: Vermillion Villages
Project County: Mecklenburg
Owner Address: 13815 Cinnabar Place, Huntersville, NC 28078
Transportation Project: No
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR: 401 Water Quality Certification (Regular)
Does this project have an existing project ID#?: No
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?: Doug Perez
Please give a brief project description below and include location information.: The site a proposed residential development located in a semi -urban setting located just south of 4th Street, southwest of
Glendale Drive, east of N. Church Street, and north of Huntersville-Concord Road, in Huntersville, NC. There is a disturbed former industrial site on the northern portion and wooded slopes on the southern portion.
The elevation is approximately 750-800 ft. One stream crossing is proposed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information!
Best,
Amber
Amber Lipsky
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
www.wetlands-epg.com
401.339.4292
Vermillion Village Maps.pdf
2011K

WEPG
Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 2016 - 01916
Prepare file folder n
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Vermillion Village
2. Work Type: Private pi Institutional ri
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
NWP 29 request for residential development
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Assign Action ID Number in ORM pi
Government n Commercial
Bowman Development (Applicant)
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: WEPG, PLLC c/o Heath Caldwell
EI
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Bib]:
35.4149, -80.8381
North Church Street, Huntersville, NC 28078
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]: 01902202, 01902201
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Huntersville
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]: South Prong Clarke Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]:Rocky (03040105)
Authorization: Section 10 n Section 404 n Section 10 & 404 n
Regulatory Action Type:
piStand m Nationwide Permit #
n RegionaldarGeneralPerit Permi29 t #
n Jurisdictional Determination Request
H
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
n Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

WEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
April 14, 2022
Assigned Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Mr. Doug Perez
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Mr. Paul Wojoski
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
Wetlands & Storm Water Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: SAW-2016-01916; Pre -Construction Notification for NWP #29 for the Vermillion
Villages site in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
USACE Assigned Project Manager and Messrs. Perez, Wojoski, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for Nationwide Permit #29 for the Vermillion Villages site on 29.43 acres
located east of N. Church Street in Huntersville, NC. The site is a proposed residential
development and consists of three streams and six wetlands. An Approved Jurisdictional
Determination Request was authorized in December 2016. Please refer to the Jurisdictional
Determination Information section for information on onsite surface waters.
As shown on the attached exhibits, the proposed project will include permanent impacts to one
stream for road crossing access. Total permanent impacts proposed include 33 linear feet (0.002
acres) of stream impact (Stream J). These access crossings were necessary due to City
connectivity requirements as well as constraints from existing sewer line infrastructure.
Charlotte Office:
106 12-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetlands-epg.com
1
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite I D, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

WEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Overall impacts to site surface waters associated with the proposed development were limited
through site selection location, design, and the location/orientation of the proposed lots and
access routes. Headwalls are proposed at the crossing and, where possible, 2:1 slopes will be
implemented to limit impacts to site surface waters. The applicant has demonstrated substantial
avoidance and minimization efforts in which 94.7% of the 685 linear feet onsite streams will be
avoided. No wetland impacts are proposed as a part of this project. Due to limited site impacts,
no mitigation is proposed.
Also enclosed is a copy of our Threatened/Endangered Species Evaluation for the site. No listed
species were identified within the project area. The concurrence determination on listed species
and their critical habitat, as designated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, was
obtained by Fish & Wildlife services. Please refer to the Threatened and Endangered Species
Evaluation Section for additional details on the terrestrial species evaluation and a copy of the
FWS concurrence. Thank you for your consideration and please contact me if you have any
questions, [phone] or email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Heath Caldwell
Environmental Scientist
Len Rindner, PWS
Principal
Charlotte Office:
106 12-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
[e-mail]
www.wetlands-epg.com
2
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. 1
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Permit Application
Permit Application

DWR
Division of water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk * below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are answered.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E-PCN, all you need to do is right -click on the document and you can print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/0/edoc/624704/PCN%20Help%20File%202018-1-30.pdf (https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/O/doc/603610/Pagel.aspx)
A. Processing Information
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on: *
4/14/2022
County (or Counties) where the project is located:*
Mecklenburg
Add additional county
Is this a NCDMS Project*
OYes C No
Click Yes, only if NCDMS is the applicant or co -applicant.

Is this project a public transportation project?*
0 Yes QQ No
This is any publicly funded by municipal,state or federal funds road, rail, airport transportation project.
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: *
O Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
0 Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
0 Yes
Q No
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization? *
Q Nationwide Permit (NWP)
O Regional General Permit (RGP)
❑ Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?*
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
Add additional NWP
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
List all NW numbers you are applying for not on the drop down list.
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR: *
check all that apply
Q 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
O Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
29 - Residential Developments
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization

For the record only for DWR 401 Certification: 0 Yes 0 No
For the record only for Corps Permit: 0 Yes QQ No
If. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
Q Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program.
Q Yes No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Upload
FILE TYPE MUST BE PDF
lh. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?*
Q Yes No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed? *
0 Yes Q No
Link to trout information: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Agency-Coordination/Trout.aspx (http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Agency-Coord ination/Trout.aspx)
B. Applicant Information
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Heath Caldwell
lc. Primary Contact Phone:*
lb. Primary Contact Email: *
[e-mail] [phone]
Id. Who is applying for the permit?*
Owner Applicant (other than owner)

le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
®Yes 0 No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:*
Vermillion Anchor Mill Village LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
Nate Bowman
2d. Address*
Street Address
13815 Cinnabar Place
City
Huntersville
Postal / Zip Code
28078
2e. Telephone Number: *
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
()-
2g. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA

Add another owner
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:*
Heath Caldwell
4b. Business Name:
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
4c. Address*
Street Address
10612-D Providence Road
Address Line 2
PMB 550
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28277
4d. Telephone Number:*
[phone]
(m)m-
4f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
1. Project Information
la. Name of project:*
Vermillion Villages

1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:*
Huntersville
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
(tax PIN or parcel ID)
01902202, 01902201
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Postal / Zip Code
2d. Site coordinates in decimal degrees
2b. Property size:
(in acres)
29.43
State / Province / Region
Country
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey -grade GPS device) after the decimal place as appropriate, based on how the location was
determined. (For example, most mobile phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal place.)
Latitude: *
35.4149
3. Surface Waters
Longitude: *
-80.8381
-77.796371

3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
South Prong Clarke Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
C
Surface Water Lookup (https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6e125ad7628f494694e259c80dd64265)
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
Add another river basin
v
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.*
030401050101
River Basin Lookup (http://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apes/Publiclnformation/index.html?appid=ad3a85a0c6d644a0b97cd069db238ac3)
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: *
The site is located in a semi -urban setting located just south of 4th Street, southwest of Glendale Drive, east of N. Church Street,
and north of Huntersville-Concord Road, in Huntersville, NC. There is a disturbed former industrial site on the northern portion and
wooded slopes on the southern portion. The elevation is approximately 750-800 ft.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past? *
0 Yes QQ No 0 Unknown

4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.152
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
(intermittent and perennial)
685
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The proposed residential development will include one road crossing for site access.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
Fill and grading of the site will use standard equipment, excavator, dump truck, track hoe, etc.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Q Yes _ No Unknown
Comments:

5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? *
0 Preliminary O� Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
Example: SAW-2017-99999
SAW-2016-01916
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Nic Nelson
WEPG
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR.
This site was verified by B. Roden -Reynolds (USACE) on 12/7/17. A copy of the signed JD approval is included in the
Jurisdictional Information Information section.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
0 Yes QQ No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity? This includes other
separate and distant crossing for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization but don't require pre -construction notification.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory

1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
O Wetlands
0 Open Waters
p Streams -tributaries
0 Pond Construction
Buffers
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted.
"S." will be used in the table below to represent the word "stream".
3a. Reason for impact* (?)
3b.Impact type*
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name*
3e. Stream Type*
(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction*
3g. S. width*
3h. Impact
length*
si
Road Crossing/Utilit
Permanent v
Culvert
Stream J
Intermittent
Corps
3
Average (feet)
33
(linear feet)
Add another impact
** All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
33
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
0
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
33
3j. Comments:
S1- 0.002 AC, including headwall

E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project: *
Impacts associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection, design, and location/orientation of
the proposed lots and access routes. The proposed impact was driven by existing utility infrastructure and fulfilling roadway
connectivity requirements. The applicant has demonstrated avoidance and minimization efforts by avoiding —94.7% of
onsite streams. No wetland impacts are proposed.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:*
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize impacts to
onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances. The maximum allowable headwalls will be used to minimize
crossing impacts.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
0 Yes QQ No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Due to limited site impacts, no mitigation is proposed.
NC Stream Temperature Classification Maps can be found under the Mitigation Concepts tab on the Wilmington Districts RIBITS (https://ribits.usace.army.mil/ribits_apex/f?
p=107:27:2734709611497::NO:RP:P27_BUTTON_KEY:O) website.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
*** Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section .***
1. Diffuse Flow Plan

la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
QYes QQNo
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here
(https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401 /Buffer%20Clarification%20Memos/Options%20for%20Meeting%20Diffuse%20FIow%20Provisions%20of%20the%20Storwmater%20and%20Riparian%20Buffel
If no, explain why:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
Yes 0 No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)? *
0 Yes QQ No
To look up low density requirement click here 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2) (http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20envi ronmental %20management/su bcha pter%20h/15a%20ncac%2002h%20.1003. pdf).
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater program? *
Q Yes No
0 N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre
Hint: projects that have vested rights, exemptions, or grandfathering from state or locally implemented stormwater programs or projects that satisfy state or locally -implemented stormwater programs through use of community in -lieu programs should answer
no to this question.
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply (check all that apply): *
Q Local Government ❑ State
If you have a local government approval please include the SMP on their overall impact map.
Local Government Stormwater Programs*
p Phase II
0 USMP
Please identity which local government stormwater program you are using. *
Mecklenburg County
❑ NSW
❑ Water Supply

Comments:
Storm water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has not yet been submitted
to Mecklenburg County but will be designed to meet their criteria.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
Q Yes No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
Q Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? *
Q Yes No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No additional phases proposed.

4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project? *
® Yes ^ No 0 N/A
4b. Describe, in detail, the treatment methods and dispositions (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project. If the wastewater will be treated at a
treatment plant, list the capacity available at that plant.
Wastewater generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via sewer lines.
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat? *
0Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
® Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville v
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
0 Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?*
_ Yes .jNo
No 0 Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?*
®Yes 0 No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?*
0 Yes ® No
Link to the NLEB SLOPES document: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf (http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf)
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?**
0 Yes ® No

51. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.? *
0 Yes QQ No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? *
A threatened and endangered species assessment was conducted in which no species were identified.
Habitat may occur for the Northern long-eared bat but the project is except as described in the attached
T&E report. A copy of the FWS MANLAA determination is attached.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat? *
0Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat? *
No essential fish habitat in this region.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
Link to the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/ (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status (e.g., National Historic Trust
designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)?*
0Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? *
SHPO's website: https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/
Report from R.S. Webb & Associates
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEMA Floodplain Maps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search (https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search)

8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
Q Yes No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
www.fema.gov
https://polaris3g.mecklenburgcountync.gov/
Miscellaneous
Comments
A complete PCN package is attached.
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Upload
Vermillion Village PCN.pdf (blob:https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/d0f925d6-24f8-4ed5-9992-9f85f81fa85f) 6.3MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Signature
*
Q By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:

• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:*
Heath Caldwell
Signature *
ut alaxelG
Date
x
Date will be captured on form submission
Submit
Save as Draft

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Agent Authorization Letter
The purpose of this form is to authorize our firm to act on your behalf in matters related to aquatic
resource (i.e. stream/wetlands) identification/mapping and regulatory permitting. The
undersigned, who are either registered property owners or legally authorized to conduct due
diligence activities on the property as identified below, do hereby authorize associates of
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC, Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group (WEPG) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of applicable
permit(s) and/or certification(s).
Project/Site Name:
Property Address:
Vermillion Village
North Church Street, Huntersville, NC 28078
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 01902202, 01902201
Select one: I am other
Name:
Nate Bowman
Company: Bowman Development
Mailing Address:
13815 Cinnabar Place Huntersville, NC 28078
Telephone Number: [phone] ext. 105
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Pro s - rty Owne' / Interested Buyer* / Other* D
3 3o� 2+2-xe..
to
* The Interested Buyer/Other acknowledges that an agreement and/or formal contract to purchase and/or conduct
due diligence activities exists between the current property owner and the signatory of this authorization in cases
where the properly is not owned by the signatory.
Charlotte Office:
106 12-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

Maps/Plans

JILLHGC
Sam Fun Rd, -.
Humersville
RE
Sky
2444
Mobile Auto V ''4''
2452
N Church St
Sherwood or
Ile ARP Church 9
i
2452
American Legion9
3rd St
W Mini
Murto Made Distillery
9
Hubbard's Cupboards
& Fixtures
nd Sparrows
then
m
QMn Street Coffee
• & Coworking
4t�
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
2ndSt`
1 st St
2448
P,t,
0
Huntersridge Rd
4
abar pl
G� �a
'r
Yappy Hour Bakery
Mobile boutique an
C
244E
Harvey's Hunt
Free Delivery
on 1st Order
OW Vermillion ❑r
Pamela H. Bowman Park 9
FIGURE
1
Acres:
+/- 29.43
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
08/24/21
VICINITY MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
ALL
se, ett pt
C�
■
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
len.rindner@a wetlands-epg.com
[phone]
www.wetlands-epg.com

31n-399-_
NMain St •
100,141
Park La
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
Parcel Information Provided by
Charlotte Mecklenburg Polaris 3G
PARCEL: 01902201
VERMILLION ANCHOR
MILL VILLAGE LLC
13815 CINNABAR PL
HUNTERSVILLE NC 28078
12 30n-
PARCEL:01902202 Iwo ti
VERMILLION ANCHOR
MILL VILLAGE LLC
13815 CINNABAR PL
HUNTERSVILLE NC 28078
FIGURE
2
Acres:
+/- 29.43
08/24/21
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
PARCEL MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
■
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
len.rindner@a wetlands-epg.com
[phone]
www.wetlands-epg.com

Aerial Imagery Provided by
Charlotte Mecklenburg Polaris 3G
FIGURE
3
Acres:
08124121
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co,NC
AERIAL MAP
Subject tnusAce/mcocoverification
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
BLIK
Drawn By:
Reviewed By:
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

FIGURE
4
LOCATION
Lat: 35.4149 2N
Long: -80.8381 °W
HUC: 03040105
ROCKY
Acres:
+/- 29.43
08/24/21
r
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
USGS QUAD
Cornelius, NC
1993
SCALE
1:24,000
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
USGS MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
len.rindner@a wetlands-epg.com
[phone]
www.wetlands-epg.com

NRCS Soil Survey Manuscript
Mecklenburg County 1980
Map Unit Symbol
Totals for Area of lntirvst
FIGURE
5
Acres:
+/- 29.43
08/24/21
Map Unit Name
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Cecil sandy day loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Cecil -Urban land complex. 2 to
8 percent slopes
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
Acres in AOI
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
Percent of AOI
100.O%
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard 3. Rlndner, PLLC.
[e-mail]
[phone]
www.wetlands-epg.com

PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
SEASONAL RPW J
±157LF & 3' WIDTH
(0.010 AC)
WETLAND I
± 0.035 AC
WETLAND C
± 0.002 AC
WETLAND G
± 0.008 AC
WETLAND E
± 0.013 AC
PERENNIAL RPW A
±258 LF & 3' WIDTH
(0.017 AC)
oo
EXISTING 15'
SEWER
EASEMENT
START OF
SEASONAL
CHANNEL "J"
±270 LF & 3' WIDTH
(0.018 AC)
WETLAND F
WETLAND EXHIBIT
VERMILLION VILLAGE
NORTH CHURCH STREET
HUNTERSVILLE, NC
0 250
SCALE: 1" = 250'
500
DATE: 4/04/2022
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
MAP

VERMILLION VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT
61% IMPERVIOUS
STREAM "J" IMPACTS:
±30 LF / 90 SF - ROADWAY W/ C&G t
AND SEWER CROSSINGS.
±3LF - RETAINING WALL CROSSING. '
STORMWATER
FACILITIES TO RECEIVE
SUBSURFACE WATER
QUALITY DEVICES
UNDERGROUND'Th I
STORMWATER 1
DI: MANAGEMENT I 1
I FACILITY "A" 1 I
7. ay, \..
2 r&3\
VERMILLION VILLAGE
NORTH CHURCH STREET
HUNTERSVILLE, NC
0
UNDERGROUND
STORIAWATER
MANAGEMENT
FACILITY
250
SCALE: 1" = 250'
500
DATE: 4/04/2022
OVERALL
SITE PLAN

8" GRAVITY
SEWER
STREAM IMPACT:
±30LF / 90SF -
ROADWAY W/ C&G AND
SEWER CROSSINGS
•
EXISTING S STREAM IMPACT:
`9, ± 3LF - RETAINING
PROPERTY
LINE ��7/ WALL "B" CROSSING
4" FORCED
MAIN
OUTFALL FROM
UNDERGROUND
STORMWATER SYSTEM
WETLAND EXHIBIT
VERMILLION VILLAGE
NORTH CHURCH STREET
HUNTERSVILLE, NC
111111111111
0
BLDG #4
TYPE B -
3 STORY
40
SCALE: 1" = 40'
PROPOSED
SPRING BOX >
START OF
SEASONAL
CHANNEL "J"
80
UNDERGROUND
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
FACILITY "C"
DATE: 4/04/2022
IMPACT
AREA

SPRING BOX AND PIPE
Approximate
8" Water Main "A"
(No Impact w/ Stream)
NOIlVAD-ID
Approximate
24" Stormdrain
(No Impact w/ Stream)
780
770
760
750 1
w
-0+30 0+00
w
0
co
z
z
- Stream Impact:
Approximate 4" Force
Main Crossing
r Stream Impact:
Approximate location
of 8" Gravity Sewer
Crossing
Stream Impact:
7-- Proposed Retaining Wall
Perforated Pipe to be surrounded
by 12 inch of 2" Stone and Fabric
on top and sides
4.0' of Pipe before exit through
wall to be unperforated (Buried 1')
Perforated Pipe to be
surrounded by 18 inch of 2"
Stone and Fabric on bottom
65.15' of 15 inch HDPE Pipe @ 11.45%
I I I
0+85
FG:
EG:763.40
FG:763.398
EG:762.18
FG:762.181
EG:756.67
ti
co
ti
w
LL
0
u_
0+00
STATION
DATE: 4/04/2022
0LC)
0
0
LC)
SCALE: 1" = 50'H

PROPOSED CREEK CROSSING X-SECTION AREA
770
m
r
m
>
-1
z
760
754
0+00
STATION
Proposed Retaining Wall
Proposed 15 inch HDPE
outfall
Inv: 755.78
(Buried 1')
0+80
WETLAND EXHIBIT
VERMILLION VILLAGE
NORTH CHURCH STREET
HUNTERSVILLE, NC
0 5 10 15
SCALE: 1" = 5'V
0 50 100 150
SCALE: 1" = 50'H
DATE: 4/04/2022
PROPOSED CREEK
CROSSING
X-SECTION
AREA

Jurisdictional
Determination Information

Li o�
! a4
o p
o� Atlt
0
I.o o c
`LI
St
Fourth St
/..
! �
N
• s 4
8`
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
II
it
It,F�. f s
q n ` o 0
a
29.43 AC +/-
of
z1
•
sM Q Pq r1 f � ,f
N Chu cq q rbQ o
1 \ .
Y nn IV �� nT` � �� `
Q
_ ' Y
All
5 II 1 11 ! /' 4 1
INTERMITTENT
Y
STREAM J
try .
J Y =�.
157LF
lelbaCt
' r ' \
H
WETLAND0.093
i ri� a
AC
...0"(
WETLAND I
, gl
I
-0.035 AC
�ti':_
1170
' �y;
PERENNIAL STREAM B
^�0
1 ( f �,
d 8�,
s 4 (mil
� "I l 1
� ,
R
� �r t :4: l
-270 LF
a
WETLAND C
a a
'94z:c4.
P'
0.002 AC
�k+ \NNalb c "
WETLAND G %,fe
I, t
-0.008 AC
.
i
PERENNIAL STREAM A
"�► 47 111.
'Utz '
°
258 AC,
rF
CULVERT
wow iktor
--"INtimmar
,,
ok,,
WETLAND E
0 125 250 500
WETLAND F
�
-0.013 AC
-0 AC
—
.
USACE VERIFICATION 10/20/16
.001
Feet
'' ��
�„vv. s bra
A .
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
[e-mail]
[phone]
w ww.wetlands-epg.com
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
Drawn By:
NRN
Reviewed By:
ALL
FIGURE
DELINEATION MAP
For study purposes only - Subject to USACE/NCDEQ Verification
UPDATE,
UPDATED
8/23/21

Property Owner:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail.
Size (acres)
Nearest Waterway
USGS HUC
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2016-01916 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Cornelius
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Bowman Development Group
Drew Bowman
13815 Cinnabar Place
Huntersville, NC 28078
704-875-9704 ext. 105
bowman31(agmail.com
Nearest Town Huntersville
River Basin Upper Pee Dee
Coordinates Latitude: 35.4149
Longitude: -80.8381
Location description: The review area is located on the west side of Huntersville-Concord Road, 0.5 miles northeast of the
intersection of Huntersville-Concord Road and Old Statesville Road. PINs: 01902201 and 01902108. Reference review area
description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled "Figure No.2 Aerial Map" with a Printed Date of
09/06/2016.
4.25
Clarke Creek
03040105
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
❑ There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated MAP DATE.
Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining
compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource
protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be
affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters including wetlands, at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters
including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
® There are waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2016-01916
® The waters including wetlands, on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 10/26/2016. If you wish
to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once verified, this survey will
provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no
change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on SURVEY SIGNED DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David Shaeffer at 704-510-1437 or
d av i d.l. s h aeff a r(d,u s ac e. a rm y. m il.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the approved jurisdictional determination
form dated 12/07/2017.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 02/05/2018.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence. * *
RODEN Digitally signed by RODEN NEYNOLDS.BRYAN.KERNE-,.12633MM
- - mem,ou=DOD,ou=PKl, ou=DSA,czRODEN
Corps Regulatory Official: REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 D„e.zD,,,z.a6,3z.,,-0sao ""
Date of JD: 12/07/2017 Expiration Date of JD: 12/06/2022

SAW-2016-01916
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
h tip ://corpsmapu.usace .army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard Rindner
Address: 10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone Number: 704-904-2277
E-mail. len.rindner(a wetlands-ep2.com

SAW-2016-01916
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant:
Bowman
Bowman Development Group, Drew
File Number: SAW-2016-01916
Date: 12/07/2017
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
❑
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION
Additional
or
I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. i
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.

SAW-2016-01916
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 APPEA ' CTIONS 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
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, 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]
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: David Shaeffer
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: David Shaeffer , 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 12/07/2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Anchor Mill Site, SAW-2016-01916
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the west side of Huntersville-
Concord Road, 0.5 miles northeast of the intersection of Huntersville-Concord Road and Old Statesville Road. PINS: 01902201 and
01902108. Reference review area description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled "Figure No.2 Aerial Map" with
a Printed Date of 09/06/2016.
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Huntersville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.4149 , Long. -80.8381
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Clarke Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 10/20/2016
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): i
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 1,075 linear feet, 5' wide, and/or 0.12 acres.
Wetlands: 0.23 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identity TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IILD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section IILB.1 for
the tributary, Section IILB.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 230 square miles
Drainage area: 70 acres
Average annual rainfall: 44 inches
Average annual snowfall: 0 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Jurisdictional features on the site flow into South Prong Clarke Creek, to Clark
Creek, then to Rocky River (TNW).
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 5 feet
Average depth: +/-3 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts
® Cobbles
❑ Bedrock
❑ Other. Explain:
® Sands
® Gravel
❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: Flow of RPW A and B is perennial. Flow of RPW J is intermittent. Reference NCDWQ
Stream Identification Forms in the Jurisdictional Determination Request package.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
® the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® the presence of wrack line
® sediment sorting
® scour
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water is clear — no signs of pollutants.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Forested wetlands about onsite, Seasonal/Perennial RPW Tributaries.
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Typical aquatic and wildlife diversity.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N)
Wetland C
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland G
Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N)
0.002 Y
0.01 Y
0.05 Y
0.1 Y
Size (in acres)

Wetland H
Wetland 1
0.12
0.03
Y
Y
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Onsite wetlands and RPW's provide
habitat for herpetofauna and macroinvertebrates. The wetlands have the capacity to provide nutrients and organic
carbon to downstream foodwebs. Wetlands provide flood storage during rain events and ground water recharge
during dry periods. The wetland also traps and filters pollutants before reaching onsite RPWs and Rocky River
(TNW).
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TN W s: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Perennial RPW Tributaries A and B exhibit geomorphology, hydrology, and biological
indicators consistent with perennial flow streams in the piedmont ecoregion.
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Seasonal RPW Tributary J exhibits geomorphology, hydrology, and biological indicators consistent with
intermittent flowing streams in the piedmont ecoregion.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 1,075 linear feet 5' wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identity type(s) of waters:

3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands C, D, E, F, G, and H directly abuts onsite Perennial RPW Tributaries with no break in jurisdiction.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: Wetland J directly abuts onsite Intermittent RPW Tributary J with no break in jurisdiction.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.23 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Figure No. 1 Dated 09/09/2016
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ 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.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Figure No. 3 1:24,000 Cornelius Dated 04/08/2016
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure No. 4 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County Dated
04/08/2016 and Figure No. 5 Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County Dated 09/06/2016
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Figure No. 2 Dated 09/06/2016
or ® Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): Figure No. 7 Dated 09/06/2016 and Figure No. 8 Dated 08/23/2016,
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

Threatened & Endangered Species
Report
a--+
L
O
Q
cc
v)
a)
u
a)
Q
cn
75
aV
s_
aV
01
C
(11
75
C
w
06
75
aV
C
aV
"ICES'
s_
H

WEPG
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
For: Vermillion Village
HUNTERSVILLE
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney, Biologist
Field investigation October 8, 2021
Charlotte Office:
106 12-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
I en. ri nd ner@wet Ian ds -epg. ca m
www.wetlands-epg.com
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
This +/- 29.43 acre site is in a semi -urban setting located just south of 4th Street,
southwest of Glendale Drive, east of N. Church Street, and north of Huntersville-
Concord Road, in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. There is a
disturbed former industrial site on the northern portion and wooded slopes on the
southern portion. The site can be found on the Cornelius USGS Topographic
Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.4149 °N, longitude is -80.8381 °W. The elevation
is approximately 750-800 ft. (Figures 1-4).
Figure 1:
LOCATION
Lat: 35.4149 QN
Long:-80.8381 nN
HUC: 03040105
ROCKY
FIGURE
1
YVEPG400969
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
naar:
+/- 29.43
0$124/23
USGS QUAD
Cornelius, NC
1993
VERMILLION VILLAGE
MetklenburgCo., NC
USGS MAP
Subject to USACF/A'CDEQ verrcntion
Prepared For:
OWMAN DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By.
BIK
Renewed By:
Wenmil and Bp.e vrnend P6eJ..t Gran,
Leaned S Rlrtfner. PELC.
2
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/J 1 FLVGS47FDKRG5TCWPQV5Z164/resources
was referenced to determine the occurrence of Threatened, Endangered and
Protected species for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, the results of which
are listed below (Table 1). Maps and aerial photographs were assembled, and
the site was investigated on October 8, 2021
Table 1: Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species listed for
Mecklenburg County
County: Mecklenburg, NC
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
**Data search on October 8, 2021
Group
Name Status
Vascular Plants Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus Endangered
schweinitzii)
Vascular Plants Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea Endangered
Iaevigata)
Vascular Plants Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) Endangered
Vertebrate
Invertebrate
Northern Long -Eared Bat (Myotis Threatened
septentrionalis)
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona Endangered
decorata)
Vertebrate Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Protected under the Bald
leucocephalus) and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
WE P G 400969
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
3
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS:
Three plant species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Mecklenburg County:
• Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), listed as Federally Endangered,
is typically found in open habitats which historically have been maintained by
wildfires and grazing bison and elk herds. Now most occurrences are limited to
roadsides, woodland and field edges, and utility rights -of -way (ROW).
• Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), listed as Federally Endangered, is
typically found in open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clear cuts, dry
limestone bluffs and power line rights -of -way, requiring abundant sunlight and
little competition from other plant species.
• Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii), listed as Federally Endangered, requires
habitat of sandy forests and woodland edges. This species requires periodic fire
as a part of its ecology.
Three animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Mecklenburg County:
• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, typically inhabits forested areas near large bodies of open water
such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts and rivers, where there are suitable fish
populations and tall trees for nesting and roosting.
• Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), listed as Federally Endangered, is
restricted to cool, clean, well -oxygenated water. Stable, silt- free stream beds
are required for this species. Typically, stable areas occur where the stream
banks are well -vegetated with trees and shrubs.
• Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), listed as Federally Threatened.
During summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath
bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and non -
reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. It
has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Northern
long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula.
W E P G 400969 _ _ 4
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
RESULTS:
The site is in a semi -urban setting in the town of Huntersville. There is a
disturbed former industrial site on the northern portion and wooded slopes on the
southern portion.
There is a tank tower remaining on the former industrial portion as well as old
building foundations, slabs, stockpiles, and the perimeter is laced with old roads
and trails. Much of the area is overgrown with a scrub/shrub community
dominated by young pines and hardwood saplings including Shortleaf Pine
(Pinus echinata), Virginia Pine (P. virginiana), Winged Elm (Ulmus alata),
Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus),
Dog -fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia),
Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and Sericea Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata).
Tree species present on the slope include Willow Oak (Quercus phellos), White
Oak (Quercus alba), Post Oak (Q. stellata), Mockernut Hickory (Carya
tomentosa), Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American Elm (Ulmus americana), Red
Maple (Acer rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides), River Birch (Betula nigra), Box -elder Maple (Acer negundo),
and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra). Shrubs present are Chinese Privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), Giant Cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), and Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata). Vines include Kudzu (Pueraria
lobata), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Catbrier (Smilax sp.),
Trumpet Creeper (Campsis radicans), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
The herbaceous layer is dominated by Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium
vimineum) and includes Panic Grass (Panicum sp.), Christmas Fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea), and River Oats
(Chasmanthium latifolium).
The transitional areas and roadside habitat along 4th Street, N Church Street,
Huntersville Concord Road, and Glendale Road had been recently mowed and in
areas with overhead power lines, herbicide had been applied. Vegetation
observed includes Fescue (Festuca sp.), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginiana),
Wingstem (Verbesina sp.), Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Sericea Lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata), Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense), Poke Weed
(Phytolacca americana), Nightshade (Solanum sp.), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus),
Tickseed (Bidens spp.), and Pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus).
VVEPG400969 _ 5
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Threatened & Endangered/Protected Species Results
• All potential habitats for Schweinitz's Sunflower along the roadsides, utility
rights -of -way, transitional areas and woods edges were examined, and the
species was not observed. WEPG concludes Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) does not occur on the site.
• All potential habitats for Smooth Coneflower along the roadsides, utility
rights -of -way, transitional areas and woods edges were examined, and the
species was not observed. WEPG concludes Smooth Coneflower
(Echinacea /aevigata) does not occur on the site.
• All potential habitats for Michaux's Sumac along the roadsides, utility
rights -of -way, transitional areas and woods edges were examined, and the
species was not observed. WEPG concludes Michaux's Sumac (Rhus
michauxii) does not occur on the site.
• No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles. WEPG concludes Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us) does not occur on the site.
• Based on existing documentation, Carolina Heelsplitter populations have
not been identified within this basin. WEPG concludes Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) does not occur on the site.
• Comparing this site location to the USFWS Asheville office's website
(http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htm Is/project_review/N LE B_in_WN C. htm I)
WEPG concludes the site meets the "exempt" criteria which requires no
further action under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the
Northern Long-eared Bat.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the site investigation and the review of available data, WEPG did not
identify any protected species occurring on the subject property. No further
investigation of the presence of protected species on the site is recommended at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
A
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
October 12, 2021
WEPU #00969 6
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Curriculum Vitae for:
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist/ Botanist
B.S. Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Ms. Gaffney is a classically trained botanist and natural resource biologist and
has conducted field work and investigative studies covering thousands of
cumulative acres in both North and South Carolina since 1996, including:
• Discovered Schweinitz's Sunflower at Redlair Farm in Gaston County, NC.
which led to the purchase of the site by the State of North Carolina Plant
Conservation Program, now called Redlair Preserve. This population has
become a Recovery Site for the species.
• Located and identified numerous previously unreported populations of
Federally Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
• Located and identified numerous previously unreported populations of
Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
• Cabarrus County NC Natural Heritage Inventory. Organized, directed,
and conducted field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County for the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
• Lincoln County NC Natural Heritage Inventory. Organized, directed, and
conducted field survey of natural areas in Lincoln County for the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
• Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys and Natural Communities
Evaluation for over 55,000 acres in North and South Carolina, 1996 -
present.
• Participated in numerous Piedmont Prairie restoration projects in both
North and South Carolina.
WE P G 400969
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
7
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 2: VICINITY MAP
lerw
Dr
24521
Chur[h si
ARP Church 9
s.
i
American Legion 9
Its;
12452]
3rd St
Mini
Murto Made Distillery
9 9
Hubbard's Cupboards 0
& Fixtures
d Sparrows
hen
F
PROTECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
(it'
2nd Sj 4`4
1st St
r
� z4ae
nMain Street Coffee
Cnwerkinq
Yappy Hour Bakery
Mobile boutique an
9
Harvey's Hunt
on Free Delivery
on 1st Order
41d Vermillion Dr
Pamela H. Bowman Park
ckpo
FIGURE
2
Area.
+f- 29.43
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
08/24/21
VICINITY MAP
Subject to 11SACE/(ICDE4 verification
Drawn By:
BLK
Reviewed By:
ALL
■
Wetlands and Emironmenaal Planning Group
Leonard S. ILndner, PLLC.
len.rindner@w+erlands-epg.com
pwy s14-2277
www.eedanda.epg.eem
VVEPG400969
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
8
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 3: AERIAL MAP
Aerial Imagery Provided by
Charlotte Mecklenburg Polaris 3€
FIGURE
3
Aires!
+1- 29.43
OS/24/21
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
AERIAL MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDECI verification
Prepared for:
:OWMAN DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By.
BLK
Reviewed 6y:
Wethnds aria Errvironrnental Filming Group
L.uurd 5. Rwdorr, PLLC.
[e-mail]
(704) 9N-2277
www.wedands•epgwm
WE P G 400969
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
9
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Vermillion Village - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 4: NRCS SOIL MAP
NRCS Soil Survey Manuscript
Mecklenburg County 1980
Map Unit Symbol
CeD2
Totals for Area of Interest
FIGURE
4
Acres
+t- 29.43
08/24/21
WE P G 400969
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
—141 Y �r
Map Unit Name Acres in AOl Percent of A01
Cecil sandy clay loam. 2 to 8
percent slopes. moderately
eroded
Cecil sandy clay loam, S to 15
percent slopes. moderately
eroded
Cecit-Urban land complex, 2 to
8 percent slopes
VERMILLION VILLAGE
Mecklenburg Co., NC
SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT MAP
Subject to USACE/NCDEO verification
111 372%
11.1 37.4%
7.6 25.4
Prepared for:
BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT
Drawn By:
BLI{
Reviewed By:
Wetlands and Emnrcnmanral Planning Group
Leona1d 1. Rindnrr, PULL.
len rindner(4wethnds•epg.corn
(7114:15NX-27.77
www.wetlands-epg.com
10
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 30, 2022
Lisa Gaffney
WEPG
10612-D Providence Road
PMB 550
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
[e-mail]
f us. 1
FISH &WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Subject: Anchor Mill (Vermillion Village) Residential Development; Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
Dear Lisa Gaffney:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated March 1, 2022, wherein you solicit our comments regarding project -
mediated impacts to federally protected species. We submit the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the Applicant proposes to construct a residential
development and appurtenances on approximately 29 forested acres in Huntersville, North
Carolina. The information provided suggests that the proposed project will require authorization
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States.
No project design plans or a description of impacts to onsite habitats have been prepared or
provided at this time.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the action area
(50CFR 402.02) for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
However, the final 4(d) rule, (effective as of February 16, 2016) exempts incidental take of
northern long-eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a
known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during
the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the information provided, the project would occur at
a location where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under
the 4(d) rule for this species. Although not required, we encourage the Applicant to avoid any
associated tree clearing activities during this animal's pup season, maternity roosting season
(May 15 — August 15) and/or active season (April 1 — October 15). If adhered to, a tree
clearing moratorium would also support our concurrence with a "may affect, not likely to
adversely affect" determination from the action agency for this animal.

Your correspondence indicates that suitable habitat is present onsite for the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). However, targeted botanical surveys conducted during the
appropriate timeframe (October 8, 2021) did not detect evidence for these species at that time.
Based on the information provided, we believe that the probability for inadvertent loss of these
plant species is insignificant and discountable and we would concur with "may affect, not likely
to adversely affect" determinations from the action agency for these species. Botanical survey
results are valid for two years for the purposes of consultation under the Act:
https ://www. fws. gov/asheville/pdfs/Optimal%20Survey%20Windows%20for%201i sted%20plant
s%202020.pdf
Based on the information provided, we believe that suitable habitats do not occur onsite for any
other federally protected species, and we require no further information at this time. Please be
aware that obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground -disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing native vegetation
should be retained (if possible) to maintain riparian cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas
should be revegetated with native vegetation as soon as the project is completed. Ground
disturbance should be limited to what will be stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of the
workday. Natural fiber matting (coir) should be used for erosion control as synthetic
netting can trap animals and persist in the environment beyond its intended purpose.
Impervious Surfaces and Low -Impact Development
Increased storm -water runoff also degrades aquatic and riparian habitat, causing stream -bank and
stream -channel scouring. Impervious surfaces reduce groundwater recharge, resulting in even
lower than expected stream flows during drought periods, which can induce potentially
catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic life. Accordingly, we recommend that all
new development, regardless of the percentage of impervious surface area they will create,
implement storm -water -retention and -treatment measures designed to replicate and maintain the
hydrograph at the preconstruction condition to avoid any additional impacts to habitat quality
within the watershed.
We recommend the use of low -impact -development techniques, such as reduced road widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for
retaining and treating storm -water runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large
retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce
environmental impacts from residential development.
Where detention ponds are used, storm -water outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior
to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow
2

for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm -water
surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm -water -control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no
storm -water -control measures or best management practices should be installed within any
stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at [e-mail] if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-22-496.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
3

Cultural Resources
Report

R.S. Webb & Associates
Cultural Resource Management Consultants
2800 Holly Springs Parkway, Suite 200 • P.O. Drawer 1319
Holly Springs, Georgia 30142
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
April 6, 2022
Mr. Heath Caldwell
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
Subject: Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review
Vermillion Village Development Tract
Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
R.S. Webb & Associates No. 22-649-173
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
BACKGROUND
During March 2022, R.S. Webb & Associates (RSWA) conducted a cultural resources literature
review for the Vermillion Village development tract in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. The project area covers approximately 29 acres located east of North Church Street and
northwest of Huntersville-Concord Road, between Second and Fourth Street, in northern
Mecklenburg County (Figure 1).
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. The
purpose of the current study was to determine if previously recorded cultural resources are located
within the project area.
METHODOLOGY
Through the State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) HPOWEB database, information was
reviewed regarding National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, Mecklenburg County
surveyed -only historic resources, local landmarks, state study -list sites and historic resources
determined by the SHPO to be eligible for the NRHP. The North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) provided RSWA with information via email regarding archeological sites within
1.6 kilometers (km) (1.0 mile) of the project area. This information included site forms, location
maps and partial or full reports. Historic county maps were examined online through North Carolina
Maps, a collaboration of the University ofNorth Carolina, the State Archives ofNorth Carolina, and
the Outer Banks History Center. Historic aerial photography and additional historic maps were
accessed through Historicaerials.com, Earthexplorer.usgs.gov, Legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/, and/or
Alab amamaps .ua. edu.
The following primary sources were found to be useful in searching for historic resources within and
adjacent to the project area:

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Vermillion Village Development Tract Page 2
April 6, 2022
.
.
.
1910 USDA Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
1911 County Commissioner's Map of Mecklenburg County
1912 Rural Delivery Map of Mecklenburg County
1938 and 1969 State Highway and Public Works Commission Map of Mecklenburg County
1956, 1965, 1968, 1978, and 1983 aerial photographs of Mecklenburg County
1970 and 1993 USGS Cornelius, NC 7.5-Minute quadrangle
1993-2021 Google Earth aerial photography.
RESULTS
Previous Archeological Investigations: A review of OSA archeological survey and site location data
indicates one archeological investigation within 1.0 km of the project area. In 2002, an archeological
survey was undertaken for a proposed commuter rail system that included 11 new station sites
located along an existing rail corridor (Luchsinger et al. 2005). Survey of the Huntersville station
site was located approximately 350 m southwest of the project area (Figure 1); the study identified
one archeological site.
Previous Architectural Investigations: According to SHPO personnel, the North Carolina HPOWEB
database is the definitive source of architectural survey information for Mecklenburg County. In
2015, a limited architectural survey was conducted along Main Street in Huntersville, ahead of local
road work (van den Hurk and Bamann 2016). A number of historic resources were identified near
the current study tract (Figure 1).
National Register of Historic Places: There is one NRHP-listed historic property within 1.0 km of
the current study tract. The John F. Ewart Farm, listed in the NRHP in 1991, is situated south of
Huntersville-Concord Road, approximately 930 m and more southeast of the study tract. The house
associated with this property was moved to the north side Huntersville-Concord Road, approximately
1.1 km southeast of the study tract. The associated set of farm outbuildings appears to have been
moved elsewhere or lost altogether, as this NRHP-listed historic farm property was re -developed
circa 2007.
A 1991 NRHP documentation form established a historic context to guide the future nomination of
properties related to rural Mecklenbug County history, but this document is not formal nomination
of any specific historic property. The document included discussion of the circa 1896 Anchor Mill
building in Huntersville (no longer present) as a quintessential example of a small-town industrial
building and set standards for the eligibility of individual houses and residential districts in rural
areas and small towns (Mattson and Huffman 1990).
Mecklenburg County Historic Resources: The HPOWEB database identifies eight Determined
Eligible historic properties (DE), three Study List sites (SL), five Local Landmark properties (LL),
one potential historic district (not eligible), and no fewer than 80 surveyed -only historic properties
(SO) within 1.0 km of the project area. Within the study tract, Anchor Mill (Resource No. MK1344)
was added to the Study List in 2000, but the mill building was reportedly gone as of 2004, per the
HPOWeb database (Figure 1). No other SL properties are within 600 m of the project area. The
closest resource among the group of the DOE or Local Landmark historic properties is Resource No.
MK1342 (Huntersville Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and Cemetery) situated southwest
of the intersections of Main Street and Bingham Street, approximately 40 m west of the project area

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Vermillion Village Development Tract Page 3
April 6, 2022
(Figure 1). No other DOE or Local Landmark properties are within 350 m (southwest) of the study
tract.
The 2015 architectural survey along Main Street (van den Hurk and Bamann 2016) included
assessment of three previously recorded historic resources adjacent to the current study tract (Figure
1; Nos. MK3556, MK3558 and MK3560) and identified/assessed seven additional resources adjacent
to the project area (Figure 1; Nos. MK3579-MK3581 and MK3588-MK3590). This survey also
included a collective assessment of Anchor Mill in the project area and its "mill village" as a district
of resources both recorded and unrecorded (Resource No. MK1344). The village component, or
worker housing area, is composed of at least 28 buildings near or immediately adjacent to the current
study tract (i.e. along Church Street, Main Street, and 3' Street, and 4' Street); the district was
determined ineligible in 2006 and 2015, per the 2016 survey report and SHPO concurrence (van den
Hurk and Bamann 2016).
Recorded Archeological Sites: OSA data indicate that one recorded archeological site, 31MK1074,
is within 1.0 km of the project area (Figure 1). This site was found during the above -noted
Luchsinger et al. survey (2005) and is a disturbed scatter of 19' and 20th century domestic artifacts
recommended ineligible for the NRHP in 2004.
Revolutionary War Actions: There were at least five reported Revolutionary War military
engagements in Mecklenburg County, the closest of which was the Battle of the Bees (8.7 km
southwest) on October 3, 1780. The brief battle was fought between British Provincial troops and
cavalry, foraging northward during the occupation of Charlotte, and two regiments of Patriot militia
supported by a group of 13 area farmers. The British armies eventually evacuated Charlotte to the
southwest, were reinforced in South Carolina, and then moved west to northeast, skirmishing during
early February 1781 at Cowan's Ford (10 km northwest) and at Tarrant's Tavern in Iredell County
(12 km north) (Lewis 2021).
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-day 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 Kershaw, Lancaster County, South
Carolina (97 km southeast), whence his armies turned northeast and moved toward Laurel Hill and
Fayetteville, North Carolina, thus bypassing the project region (Davis et al. 1983).
Historic Cemeteries: The USGS topographic maps reviewed show three large cemeteries within
within 360 m of the study tract (Figure 1). The closest cemetery, associated with Huntersville
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, are part of the previously mentioned DOE Resource No.
MK1342 and is approximately 40 m west of the project area.
Historic Railroad: The Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio Railroad was chartered in 1855 and its rail was
established from Charlotte to Statesville by 1863. The entire length of rail was soon removed and
used to replace rails that were elsewhere destroyed during the war. The rail line was re-established
on the old road bed in 1871 and it remains active through Huntersville today (Robie 2018). Historic
rail corridors maybe eligible for the NRHP, but almost all historical significance is contained within
rail corridor rights -of -way.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Vermillion Village Development Tract Page 4
April 6, 2022
Structures on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs: The earliest available maps of Mecklenburg
County (1910-1912) show a building in the northwestern section of the study tract (probably the
circa 1896 Anchor Mill) and road corridors to the west, north, and south that were all lined by
numerous buildings; no buildings were shown along Glendale Drive (northeast). The current course
of Huntersville-Concord Road (southeast) did not appear on early 20th century maps (its pre -cursor
route was located further south). The current road alignment appeared on highway maps from 1938
and 1969; these maps do not include individual features within the boundaries of incorporated places
such as Huntersville. The 1970 and 1993 USGS topographic maps shows mill -related buildings, an
elevated water tank and numerous mill village -related buildings closely associated with the mill
complex (Figure 1)
Aerial photographs from 1956 thourgh 1998 show little change in developments located north and
west of the study tract, or along 3rd Street to the southwest. The 1956 aerial shows Steel Street
passing north from 3' Street into the study tract with eight dwellings along its course (Figure 1). The
number of buildings present along this road was two by 1968; by 1978, no buildings were present.
Development along Glendale Drive adjacent to the northeastern study tract boundarywas very sparse
through 1983 (one building north of the road), but both sides of the road were lined with buildings
by 1998. Along Huntersville-Concord Road to the southeast, development was sparse to the east of
the road prior to 1998, when clearing for modern development was ongoing. No buildings appeared
west of the road, in or near the study tract, on historic aerial photographs.
Google Earth aerial photography from 2004 and 2005 chronicle the complete demolition of Anchor
Mill and the extent of environmental remediation activities within the mill complex/project area.
More recent aerials (2018-2021) indicate significant reforestation of the study tract.
CONCLUSIONS
No NRHP-listed properties are recorded within or near the project area. Likewise, no recorded
determined -eligible properties, designated local landmarks, archeological sites or cemeteries are
located within the study tract. The project area lies within a portion of one state study -list property,
Resource No. MK1344 (Anchor Mill and mill village). This potential historic district was added to
the study list in 2000; however, the mill buildings were razed in 2004 as part of an environmental
remediation project, and in 2015 the associated mill village was determined ineligible for the NRHP,
per the HPOWeb database.
Excluding buildings associated with Anchor Mill (Resource No, MK1344), the closest recorded
NRHP-eligible property to the study tract is Resource No. 1342 (Huntersville Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church and Cemetery), about 40 m to the west. There are many historic buildings,
some individually recorded, located near the northern, western and southern study tract boundaries,
all of which were determined ineligible for the NRHP, either individually in 2006, or collectively
in 2015.
Historic maps and aerial photographs indicate stability in the occupation and use of the study tract
and its immediate environs during the 20' century and into the early 2000s. A road and a number
of dwellings present in the study tract through 1956 were no longer present by 1978 and, conversely,
residential development east and southeast of the study tract did not occur until after 1983.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Vermillion Village Development Tract Page 5
April 6, 2022
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Caldwell, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact me at 770-345-0706.
Sincerely,
R.S. WEBB & ASSOCIATES
Neil J.wen
Historian
Attachments: Figure 1
a7).
Robert S. (Steve) Webb
President and Senior Principal Archeologist
REFERENCES
Davis, G.B., L. J. Perry and J. W. Kirkley, compiled by C. D. Cowles
1983 Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Reprint
of the 1891-1895 edition. The Fairfax Press, New York.
Lewis, J.D.
2021 The American Revolution in North Carolina. Internet -Online. Found at:
http://www.carolana.com /NC/Revolution/home.html. Accessed February 2022.
Luchsinger, H., T. Baliey, L. Lautzenheiser, and B. Hall
2005 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed North Corridor Commuter Rail Project
(NCCR), Charlotte Area Transit System, Charlotte, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina
Research. Tarboro, North Carolina.
Mattson, R. and W. Huffman
1990 Historic and Architectural Resources of Rural Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Robie, D.
2018 "AT&O - Statesville to Charlotte". West Virginia and North Caroline Rails. Online
Document. Found at: https://www.wvncrails.org/ato-statesville-to-charlotte.html.
Accessed April 1, 2022.
van den Hurk, J. and S.E. Bamann
2016 Architectural Survey, Roadway Improvements, N.C. 115, N. Main Street, S. Main
Street, and Gilead/Huntersville-Concord Road, Town of Huntersville, Meckelnburg
County, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina Research. Tarboro, North Carolina.

Circa t1871\s
Rail Corridor
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
t �yJ,rJ1 - . �•
I!M+K3 � 9 sI
I J MK3 80
MK3581
MK3556 '
'y114K3558 ,,
�rrMK3588
MK35.60`
7
Bingham
rStreet
MK13421
Hunt'ersv'ille
AssociiReformed
P sb3rteria'n �C-hurch
It enieFery)t
\\L%uchiingleria nd
'Lutzenlleierli
(4?015)
31MK107,4
Map Reference: 7.5-Minute USGS Quadrangle
Cornelius, North Carolina (1993)
•
•
•
•
7.011
i
4th Street
L.Tzkr
Project Area
te)
Glendale Drive
' K1344
(Anchoir Mill and
'Mill Village)
3rd Street~
2n` d
s `.
Street
h)rchrStreet� ► 1
ll I ram` r
A Structure on Historic Maps and Aerial
/ Recorded Historic Resource
• Recorded Archeological Site
Previous Cultural Resource Project
--- Road on Historic Maps and Aerials
Scale
0 198 meters
0 650 feet
Figure 1 Project Area, Previous Projects and Cultural Resources Location Map