20221376 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20221004

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Initial Review
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
Yes
No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No
Change only if needed.
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
8/31/2022
BIMS # Assigned* Version#*
20221376 1
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
Fee received
Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
la. Name of project:
Creekside Cottages
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Amber Lipsky
What amout is owed?*
$240.00
$570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Doug Perez:eads\djperez
lb. Primary Contact Email:* lc. Primary Contact Phone:*
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
10/4/2022
Nearest Body of Water
Long Branch
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.3001 -81.2601
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Gaston
Is this a NCDMS Project
Yes No
Is this project a public transportation project? *
Yes No

la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
Yes
No
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 29 - Residential Developments
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
ld. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
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:
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1 h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
Yes No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
ld. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
BBB&C Enterprises LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
Bobby & Cathy Conner
2d. Address
Street Address
P.O. Box 845
Address Line 2
City
Cherryville
Postal /Zip Code
28021
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
Yes No
Yes No

2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
2g. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Mark Henninger
3b. Business Name:
Lennar
3c. Address
Street Address
6701 Carmel Road
Address Line 2
Ste 425
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28226
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Amber Lipsky
4b. Business Name:
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group, PLLC
4c. Address
Street Address
10612-D Providence Road
Address Line 2
PMB 550
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28227
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
Bessemer City
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
307413
2b. Property size:
97.36
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Postal / Zip Code Country

3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Long Branch
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030501020602
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 just east of Costner School Road, and just north of Hwy 274 in Bessemer City, NC. The topography consists of upland flats grading into drainages to Long Creek, with
the elevation ranging from 790 to 830 ft. The entire site is old farmland in various stages of succession; there is disturbed pine dominated cover on the upland slopes, and the lower slopes
and stream corridors are dominated by a disturbed mixed hardwoods.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past? *
Yes No Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.24
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
7812
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The proposed project will include one road crossing and utility installation.
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 No
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? *
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2021-02109
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Nic Nelson
WEPG
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 K. Stygar (USAGE) on 11/12/21. A copy of the signed JD approval is included in the Jurisdictional Determination Information section.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
Yes 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):
Wetlands Streams -tributaries
Open Waters Pond Construction
Buffers
3. Stream Impacts

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*
S1
Road Crossing
Permanent
Culvert
Stream D
Perennial
Corps
7
Average (feet)
120
(linear feet)
S2
Road Crossing
Permanent
Rip Rap Fill
Stream D
Perennial
Corps
10
Average (feet)
20
(linear feet)
S3
Road Crossing
Temporary
Dewatering
Stream D
Perennial
Corps
7
Average (feet)
36
(linear feet)
S4
Utility Installation
Temporary
Excavation
Stream D
Perennial
Corps
7
Average (feet)
32
(linear feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
140
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
208
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
68
3j. Comments:
S2- No loss impact; rip rap will be installed at pre -construction streambed elevations
S4- Area will be restored to pre-existing conditions, as indicated on Streambank Stabilization Exhibit
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. Efforts of minimization were implemented during the design to preserve existing site hydrology and limit adverse effects to
existing, onsite natural habitat. Retaining walls are proposed to minimize impacts, sidewalks at the crossing have been pinched in, and 2:1 slopes will be
implemented to limit impacts. The applicant has demonstrated avoidance and minimization efforts by avoiding 97% of site streams and all wetlands.
lb. 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.
Where possible, 2:1 slopes and 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?
Yes 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?
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? *
Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
Yes No
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?
Yes No
N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply:
Local Government State
Local Government Stormwater Programs
Phase II NSW USMP Water Supply

Please identify which local government stormwater program you are using.
Gaston 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 Gaston 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?*
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)?*
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
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 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?*
Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
Yes No
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.?
Yes 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. Concurrence has been obtained from FWS.
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://gis.gastongov.com/Map/Defaultaspx
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
Creekside Cottages PCN.pdf 8.26MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
A complete PCN package is attached.
Signature
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:
Amber Lipsky
Signature
Date
10/4/2022

WEPG
Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
SAW — 2021 - 02109 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Creekside Cottages
2. Work Type: Private❑ Institutional ❑
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
PCN request for residential development
Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
Government ❑ Commercial ❑
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Lennar Carolinas (Applicant)
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 —or ORM Consultant ID Number]: WEPG, PLLC c/o Amber Lipsky
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]:
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
35.8159,-80.8721
west of Costner School Road, at Bobbie Lane
8. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form 131a]: 307413
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Gaston
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Bessemer City
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Long Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]:Catawba (03050102)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 �✓ Section 10 & 404 ❑
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
U Nationwide Permit # 29
❑ Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
001 0W411IW1L069%

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
October 4, 2022
Ms. Krysta Stygar
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Mr. Douglas Perez
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Mr. Paul Wcjoski
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
Subiect: SAW-2021-002109; Pre -Construction Notification for NWP 429 for the Creekside
Cottages site in Bessemer City, Gaston County, North Carolina
Ms. Stygar, Messrs. Perez, Wcjoski, and Hamstead,
Enclosed is a request for Nationwide Permit 929 for the Creekside Cottages site on 97.36 acres
located east of Costner School Road at Bobbie Lane in Bessemer City, NC. The site is a
proposed residential development and consists of eight streams and five wetlands. The site was
verified by the USACE in November 2021. 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 a road crossing. Temporary impacts are limited to utility installation and construction
access to install the road crossing. Total permanent impacts proposed include 120 linear feet
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
PMB 550 Suite 10, PMB 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone] 1
[e-mail]

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
(0.019 acres) of stream impacts (Stream D). This access crossing was necessary due to City
connectivity and emergency vehicle access requirements.
Impacts associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection, design,
and location/orientation of the proposed lots and access routes. Efforts of minimization were
implemented during the design to preserve existing site hydrology and limit adverse effects to
existing, onsite natural habitat. Retaining walls are proposed to minimize impacts, sidewalks at
the crossing have been pinched in, and 2:1 slopes will be implemented to limit impact to site
surface waters. The applicant has demonstrated avoidance and minimization efforts by avoiding
97% of site streams and all wetlands. 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 and we believe that there will be no effect on
listed species, or their critical habitat as designated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. This report has been submitted to Fish & Wildlife Services for concurrence. Please refer to
the Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation Section for additional details on the
terrestrial species evaluation. Thank you for your consideration and please contact me if you
have any questions, [phone] or email at amber. I ip sky kwetl ands-ep g.com.
Sincerely,
Amber Lipsky, P_WS
Environmental Scientist
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
len. ri [e-mail]
www.wetiands-epg.com
2
Heath Caldwell, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Asheville Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PM 283
Asheville, NC 28805

C
O
V
d
d
Q
L.
N
CL
Permit Application

w A rE�QG
T.
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Creekside Cottages
2b.
County:
Gaston
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Bessemer City
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
BBB&C Enterprises LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Bobby & Cathy Conner
3d.
Street address:
P.O. Box 845
3e.
City, state, zip:
Cherryville, NC 28021
3f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: Developer
4b.
Name:
Mark Henninger
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Lennar
4d.
Street address:
6701 Carmel Road, Ste. 425
4e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28226
4f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Amber Lipsky
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group, PLLC
5c.
Street address:
10612-D Providence Road, PMB 550
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28277
5e.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
307413
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.3001 Longitude:-81.2601
1c.
Property size:
97.36 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Long Branch
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
Catawba/03050102
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is located just east of Costner School Road, and just north of Hwy 274 in Bessemer City, NC. The topography consists of upland flats grading
into drainages to Long Creek, with the elevation ranging from 790 to 830 ft. The entire site is old farmland in various stages of succession; there is
disturbed pine dominated cover on the upland slopes, and the lower slopes and stream corridors are dominated by a disturbed mixed hardwoods.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.24
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 7,812
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed project will include one road crossing and utility installation.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Fill and grading of the site will use standard equipment, excavator, dump truck, track hoe, etc.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project(including all priorphases) in thepast?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: SAW-2021-02109
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑X Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Nic Nelson
Agency/Consultant Company: WEPG
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
This site was verified by K. Stygar (USAGE) on 11/12/21. A copy of the signed JD approval is included in the Jurisdictional Determination Information
section.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
Stream D
PER
Corps
7
120
S2 P
Stabilization
Stream D
PER
Corps
10
20
S3 T
Construction Access
Stream D
PER
Corps
7
36
S4 T
Excavation
Stream D
PER
Corps
7
32
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
208
3i. Comments:
S2- No loss impact; rip rap will be installed at pre -construction streambed elevations
S4- Area will be restored to pre-existing conditions, as indicated on Streambank Stabilization Exhibit
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes/No
B2
Yes/No
B3
Yes/No
B4
Yes/No
B5
Yes/No
B6
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts associated with the proposed development were limited through site selection, design, and location/orientation of the proposed lots and
access routes. Efforts of minimization were implemented during the design to preserve existing site hydrology and limit adverse effects to
existing, onsite natural habitat. Retaining walls are proposed to minimize impacts, sidewalks at the crossing have been pinched in, and 2:1 slopes will
be implemented to limit impacts. The applicant has demonstrated avoidance and minimization efforts by avoiding 97% of site streams and all wetlands.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction techniques will implement approved erosion control methods to avoid/minimize impacts to onsite/adjacent offsite receiving conveyances.
Where possible, 2:1 slopes and 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?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments: Due to limited site impacts, no mitigation is proposed.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
1 g
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
Storm
water on the site will be handled by facilities shown on the attached plans. The stormwater plan has
not yet been submitted to Gaston County
but
will be designed to meet their criteria.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Gaston County
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Gaston County
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes 0 No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
[]Yes 0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑Yes 0 No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes 0 No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No
additional phases proposed.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater
generated on the site will be transported to the nearest treatment facility via sewer lines.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. 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. Concurrence has been obtained from FWS.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
No essential fish habitat in this region.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
SHPO's website: 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 ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
www.fema.gov
https://gis.gastongov.com/Map/Default.aspx
Am�xA
Amber Lipsky
10-04-2022
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: 92025ABF-EDE4-45F4-A63C-B9A834D02F9F
WEPG- -
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).
Proj ect/Site Name: Costner School Road
Property Address: Costner School Road, Bessemer City, NC 28016
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 220086, 151795, 152089
Select one: I am other
Name: Mark Henninger
Company: Lennar
Mailing Address: 6701 Carmel Road, Ste. 425, Charlotte, NC 28226
Telephone Number: [phone]
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
—DocuSigned by:
k,A4 t f &, W 9/23/2021
Property Owner / Interested Buyer* / Other" Date
* 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 property is not owned by the signatory.
Charlotte Office: www.wetlands-epg.com Asheville Office:
10612-D Providence Rd. 1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg.
PMB 550 Suite 10, PM 283
Charlotte, NC 28277 Asheville, NC 28805
[phone]
len. [e-mail]

N
_05
N
Q
05
10
Maps/Plans

(27a
Bessemer City
161
G & G Taxidermy Q
c
C
C.1
Max Baxter Roofinc
�a
6
Q
V
Tuhcln RvE Qi
c
4 a
z
0
0
Q
U-
13
Ln
pnme�
1
flO
V
S
costae"
r0
n
`°t�2 J
�:N
Sose
3
r
BARKER'S RIDGE
D n
f Iona C3 m E
�CBM Precision
Ingles Markets Flowers � s
y Parts Manufacturer Ca (Nato
m
arnQpye �CVS WEST GASTGNI
The Family Pizzagalli Ra
15 274 Cis�eS
ant
ADS Q Tosaf USA
6
plZZena a
Dole Fresh Vegetables
N
Acres: CREEKSIDE COTTAGES Prepared for:
+/- 97.36 Gaston Co., NC LENNAR
FIGURE
1 VICINITY MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
08118121 Subject toUSACE/NCDEQverification BLK ALL �. .�.

FIGURE
2
PARCEL:307413
r�
BBB&C ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOX 845
5 CHERRYVILLE, NC 28021
PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
1
1
1
1
Parcel Information Provided by
Gaston County Online GIS 2022
Acres: CREEKSIDE COTTAGES
+/- 97.36 Gaston Co., NC
08118121 PARCEL MAP
updated Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
9120122
Prepared for:
LENNAR
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
BLK I ALL

A4 •�
Y I
so
In
a `
iy,• '..'?" fit. �_�, �i�ti
731 I STUDY LIMITS
1 �
y
It%
.• w +
- 1 `
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
len. r i nd n e r@ wet I an ds-e p g.c o m
[phone]
www.wetiands-epg.com

7 _ y V
i
z
t _ �� �►
LONG CREEK R
•-. :;1' J`
•
� - • r
i
s� ; PROJECT BOUNDARY ; --
• •�4+� STUDY LIMITS
1 y• '
41
IN
1 ■ 's
''�=mod► ,y � •, � _ � _- -
-- 4 • = 17 ' 3 0"
1 ��►� . ,
n
i •.. ; 4V i i1 �.t, l< Holland bieta Chi. •
IK _ Y!
LOCATION
Lat: 35.8159 °N 1 '
Long:-80.8721 °W USGS QUAD •
N HUC: 03050102 Bessemer City, NC
SOUTH FORK CATAWBA 1993
Acres: CREEKSIDE COTTAGES Prepared for: 1
+/- 97.36 Gaston Co., NC LENNAR
FIGURE
4 USGS MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
OS/18/21 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BLK ALL

TaE°
3 !-
. aN
�4r+ Ta
T&E
T ak
D R PROJECT BOUNDARY .
STUDY LIMITS
A d k TaE
I
TaB o TaB
Pad, T aff c�ab2 CcB2 G&B? GaB2
i
CaB 2
II .2 1 t T T
`$ aB
N NRCS Soil Survey Manuscript
Gaston County 1989
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AD Percent of AOt
CeI52 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 3.2 3.3% ■ O
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
cis Cecil -Urban land complex, 2 to 7.3 7.5%
8 percent slopes '
CID Cecil -Urban land complex, 8 to 0.0 0.0%
15 percent slopes
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent 12.1 12.4%
slopes, frequently flooded
LdB2 Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 11.4 11.7%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
LdD2 Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 32.3 33.0%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
TaB Tatum gravelly loam, 2 to 8 12.6 12.9%
percent slopes
TaD Tatum gravelly loam, 8 to 15 0.8 0$%
percent slopes
Talz Tatum gravelly loam, 15 to 25 17.1 17.5%
percent slopes
UwF Uwharrie stony loam, 25to45 0.9 0.9%
percent slopes. very
bouldery '�
Totals for Area of Interest 97.6 100.E % G a B 2
Acres: CREEKSIDE COTTAGES Prepared for:
+/- 97.36 Gaston Co., NC LENNAR
FIGURE
5 SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
08118121 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BLK ALL
.14
T J
fo
m
T
_1 aLl
Coe ?

4 ,lri ISO.
796
�b
CV
_7 800 802
�Q r
_ PROJECT BOUNDARY
- -r- STUDY LIMITS
f I _ 834Aft a o
0 •� € 1 ' 4b
t 8 -- +
02 Op $46 8
Ira a
lb-
cp I T . Ai7 -
�o
J-814
N No FEMA Floodplain as per
ry.
I Gaston County Online GIS 2021
I 4 274
Acres: CREEKSIDE COTTAGES Prepared for:
+/- 97.36 Gaston Co., NC LENNAR
FIGURE
6 FLOODPLAIN MAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
OS/18/21 Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification BLK ALL

INTERMITTENT STREAM
B50' UNDISTURBED STREAM
INTERMITTENT STREAM
20'"Cl" BUFFER
UNDISTURBED
WETLAND
IMPERVIOUS AREA = 17.93 AC
IMPERVIOUS % = 18.40 %
PROPOSED CONNECTION TO EXISTING
STREET
FLOODPLAIN W/OUT FLOOD STUDY
(LIMITS OF CHEWACLA LOAM SOILS)
20' GREENWAY EASEMENT
(DEDICATED TO THE CITY)

PROPERTY LINE _
-60
� `em
�Ll
"Cl" BUFFER
_ PROP.-
��� _ CONNECTION TO = ----'--
STREAM 50'BUFFER _ - _ -c1d EXISTING STREET _ ----� o
6„SS T _ J a� o f \PROPERTY LINE ----- -, 77-
_ STREAM IMPACT'D' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ b
_-- - - _ 120LF(866SF) w -� -- --� -J `n
DISTURBANCE DUE _lo
- -� --- o TO CULVERT Ao------------_ w
f % o - - PROP. HEADWALLPROP. RAP
_ o
IP
APRONRFOR 48" RCP
111 48"RCP @0.96%mow
STREAM IMPACT'D' >
EX. STREAM TOP ,aoa° ,o° ,o ��-aZa� N 8os ti: ao2 e� a-- 20 LF (213 SF) DISTURBANCE z
OF BANK - - _ �� oo DUE TO RIP AP
`� PROP. HEADWALL _ 2 _ -!` v�81� e cn U
\ PN OP'D — _ 0 �� 8pg ` � cp -_ w Z
G�� 06 PROP. 20' - Q9 O
814 \�. ��P�°NPN _-',a_z6 ` -�_- GREENWAY- Q H
�s 1�P\N�� \ 1 - _ �� - - _ �' - _ EASEMENT _ U)
\ `\ STREAM 50' BUFFER _ - - - - - N _ BOO - ~ Q
O
PROP. STREET'B'
PROP. TEMPORARY __ {" -� __ -� -CENTERLINE
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AREA - - - - _ - _ _ - _ 830 9g�-u_J ULu
(TEMP. IMPACT=720 SF, 36.5LF _ -0
'W Q
_ - -_- - R/W RIP RAP WILL BE BURIED AT N w <
o PRE -CONSTRUCTION STREAMBED GRADE. W W Q U
DIVERSION CHANNEL WILL BE UTILIZED w U) Z
FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. U m J
PROP. PERMANENT STREAM IMPACTS:
PERENNIAL STREAM 'D' (CULVERT)= 120 LF = 866 SF
PERENNIAL STREAM 'D' (RIP RAP)= 20 LF = 213 SF
bb
TOTAL STREAM IMPACT = 140 LF = 1079 SF
—— G= -— 8� LEGEND. u) o N
p = N
lb p � \ — — STREAM LINE o
D in aJ)` U
— --_��ti ----- --- STREAM T.O.B.

825
NOTE: CULVERT WILL BE BURIED AT
12" BELOW PRE -CONSTRUCTION
STREAMBED GRADE.
820
z�
am
ego
820
1
PROP.
PIPE CENTERLINE
815
815
14 z>l
GRADE AT
b
Lo
N
810
810
W
J
Q
U
U) o
805
805
U
Z
H
Z
D
Ln w o
z
PROP.
800
HEADWALL
800
(7
Q 0 L_uj
U
Q 0
0
w U Q
0 Lu
EX. GRADE AT
PIPE CENTERLINE
PROP. HEADWALL
FILL PIPE TO EX.
GRADE BEYOND
795
4711,
795
N W Q
W U) z Q
UmW �
790
111
LF 48"
RCP @ p gso�o
790
Lu
w
z
z
Y
0
lll�Q
z
Z
o
" °
Q u= o M
I NV. IN:
795.00
I NV. OUT: 793.94
0
U
0+00 1+00 2+00 2+25 Q a Q
<
0
m, —
o U

Z n
tlm
n
N
N
IT--
IT--
O
O
(3)
(3)
00
b
00
00
00
00
00
00
O
Lo
+
N
o
L
N
W
J
Q
H W
Q Z
U
co 0
0
\
Q W
Z
W
XU
LU
U
z
o
o
a
rn
O
rn
U
O
z cn
o
a
r
+
�
0 0
o
N U 0
QLu
z
v
a
�Z U
O
<w
HQ 0
ui
d U
0
L
0o
0-0
LU U w
W Q
N
W U) z Q
UmW �
Lo
O
Lo
O
Lo
O
Lo
O
Lo
N
N
O
O
d')
d')
00
o0
00
00
00
00
00
ti
f`
ti
z
Y
0
Q
Z
N 0
N
= N
NOTE: CULVERT WILL BE BURIED AT z
�
0
o Q
12" BELOW PRE -CONSTRUCTION
o
0
STREAMBED GRADE.o
J
6 —
` Ln
a Q
o n a U
Q U)

y \
_INTERMITTENT STREAM _ _ _'_ /r' _
6"SS 50' STREAM
--BUFFER --- ---_ -__- z�
PROPOSEDCONNECTIONTO
$s — - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
b
EX. SSMH- 0 /: �/ I \ o
I I
oe N P STREAM IMPACT'D' \ / @ ` J / w
32 LF DISTURBANCE �, ��O,Q \\ j i U
\ \ \ \ •804 �\pl 8 \ � \\ x0� / / I I �/ �
z
�, `� 1 % W U
SEE STREAM / it I I �� z
STABILIZATION EXHIBIT//// Not
PROPOSED ��/ / �/\\\ / \\ H U)
\� `\ STREAM CROSSING �/ I f ` \ �� +�` ✓� ,% Q
\ �\ \ \ \ \ \ PROPOSED
\ \ \I in\ \ \ 'SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED 30' SANITARY >s8 �� \ �`;�
'SEWER EASEMENT o �, ��\\; ��, ��, �� �� uJ U w
8 8�2 8�0 808 `\\ \\ �� ��� ,� Q � �
�PROPOSED 20'
\ GREENWAY EASEMENT. \ \ \ \ \\\ \ •M \\ \ \ \� �\\Pcc`�NPtJ°�R `�`� w W Q U
\ 824 \ \ \ \ \ \ `� r �� �`15P\r\�E� ��\� w U) Z Q
wj
N
wcq
Wv
cp
PROP. TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACTS:
\J PERENNIAL STREAM'D' DUE TO PIPE CROSSING = 32 LF
LEGEND:
STREAM LINE
\ pp -------- STREAM T.O.B.
\ oa`Z p0
N �
N O
o =
N U) O
Ln
W
Q
O O
�2 (DU
Dina co

810
810
=�
am
!•� ?
805
805
0
Lo
0
Lo
ji
N
800
Q
800
J
C o
U
Z
795
795
>
z
O
N U
wz
VO
w
790
790
Q o
0�
w
U� N
uJ U w
0 �
785
785
w
Lu W z U
UmW
w
1+00
780 0+00
2+00 2+50 780 z
z
H:1
Y
C)
"=50' ll�Q
Z
N 0
N
z
V.1 "=5' 0
U)%O ^
� < W
0= o
o
�6 2 ( —
�o �U
o Ln
a Q
n a
Q co
SSMH-001
STA: 1 +86.73
RIM: 801.61
INV. IN: 793.89 (SSMH-002)
INV. OUT: 785.33 (EX. SSMH-000)
EX. SSMH-000
STA: 0+00.00
RIM: 792.50
INV. IN: 782.94 (SSMH-001)
INV. OUT: 782.72 Q
GRADE AT
EX.
PIPE CENTERLINE
JG
,Q
Q$
�O
h�
R
�o.
8.17' OU
SIDE
DROP
H
3.
0'
@
186.73
LF OF S" PVC
SURFACE ELEVATION: 788.01
STATION: 1 +09
INVERT: 784.34

I UPON COMPLEF10N OF STREAM CROSSING WOW, CONTTRACTOR SHALL BACKFkl.
AND WCIIANICALLY TAMP (NO SPECIFIC DENSITY) SMIS INTO PLACE AND DRESS
DISTURIKI) SURFACES
7- REGMINC AT A POINT Z' ABOVE WATER SLOWAQ� FI.EVAroft GRASS &STUBBED
AREAS (SEED. FERTIUZER & STRAW MULCH) STREAM HANK, TW OF BANK AND
CIMRem AREAS UPLAND CF STREAM
& INSTALL CM FSM INETAAT STARTNC HANNMINA W BELOW WA7rR 9.041FACE
UEVAIION AND EXXNMG A MIMUW S BEYOND TOP OF SAM . MINIMM
SPEOnCAMNS FOR COLT FRU NET/UAT AS E0LLOF16'
RAIN T141CWM 5 OF QJO IP404E5
1002 COC13NUT FIBER AND %OVEN LNTO THANE
AVG MEIWT OF 2O 0UW_ES/SQ, VD.
i, COIN FIBER NET/MAT SIHALL BE suuRELY iiEw IN PLACE um tVg Or YIo00EM
STA M AND WINE STAPLES (AS WMED)
5. INSTALL LrA Si"CS BEGNNNINC AT WATER SURFACE ELNEVAnON Am EXTENOHG
2 VFRTI':AL FTFT UP rmf STRFAM BANK. SEE LJVF STAKE DETAIL FfIR
ADDITIONAL REGUIRENA£NTS-
6. INSTALL SL-T FrNC£ TH/WRE ROWORGEMENT ALONG 70P OF DAAIFH (ADJACENT TO
END OF OpR FIRER NFT/MAT) F04 TAT)TH TW MTIJRBE.) SOBS
WATER NURFACE ELEVAUM
CDR HIlR NET/MAT
GRA55 (Sul. MULL m a FFi arze)
REMAINING CtSTURINFD SINEAM BANK
AREA5 INCLUONG TOPS CIF HARK
(U1111" C*R I4110AT)
ow STARE (MLLOM OR -
SKCICS APPROVEn BY
0041I/bWC) FOR FIRST 24*
ABOVE M WATER
5LWACI_ ElEVAlICN
R''S
12-.*
-1. IIJl1�
I. NNE STARES SHALL. K APPROXIMATELY' 24' IN LENCII,
2. U%C STASES 51441, BE O.'� -i�� N DIAME?M AT THE %K
OF PLANTING
A UVE STAKCS SHALL BE BLACK WALLOW OR WECE5
SPECIFIED BY COE/DKEC CA C01119ATANT
N
* C mOM SHALL Et OORMAAi AT 11S[ TIME T1F ACOilI9710N
^ AND "TIINQ AMI LOCALLY SAOTNAARVE
5, LAVE STAKES WtMLL WE SPA= S O.C.
a RIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLMTEO A MINWJY OF IS* IN
OEPTN um NO YOGI THAN a'-G, OF STAKE foTSEo
LIVE DETAIL
EXTEND CpR rVIR MAT
EXTEND COST FIN34 NET/MAT
-- - - Tr BELOW wAILR SIJIFACL
ELEVATION
Yi,5TAt1. Sit T FENCE
REINFORCED NTH Nob
HIRE AT TV OF 0AIK
"a Or WR FIBER
NFTdWAT)
. 'AM ROUT k"T OR CW PVR T )
►Y BE U5EA TO REFORM
;REAM SAW (STA09M), la' OF
W SHALL COVER aIRFAM
DE FAA OF Rm STACNC
13E OF ROM TO ANOIGR BANK
*"KNAL)
5 p 2.5
5
1 o 29 O 10
20
SCALE
VERTICAL GRAPHIC
SCALE
HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC
CREEKSIDE COTTAGES
Gaston Co., NC
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION DETAIL
TYPICAL DETAIL - N.T.S.
Drawn By: Reviewed By:
DICK LSR
DATE:
10/01/22 /

O
.4-j
co
.E
w
jurisdictional
Determination Information

N
USACE
" o-
UPLAND DP 1 INTERMITTENT STREAM A \ ~
-325 LF
WETLAND B� PERENNIAL STREAM D
USACE -3,552 LF
0.160 AC WET - A�
- 3 DATA
o-
WETLAND E r
FORM B�
-0.0009 AC NCDEQ /
STREAM
FORM D
ro
INTERMITTENT ��e�; 2
s` STREAM C a
59 LF " e �� \ INTERMITTENT STREAM G
-121 LF
a �
�\1
` WETLAND H
b
-0.013 AC
91
R.
r% PROJECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
PERENNIAL
STREAM
-387 AC
PERENNIAL STREAM N o
462 LF WETLAND J
-0.046 AC
r \
PERENNIAL STREAM M - -
4 0
a
990 LF
1
000
4
-v
I
p
® NCDEQ
WETLAND K
,ems
STREAM
o
LEGEND
-0.015 AC
FORM L
o
LL
Project boundary study limits
o
{11 Stream
o
© Wetland
a
o go
INTERMITTENT STREAM L
N
Landscapepmotoldirection
a
-448 LF
0
Acres:
COSTNER SCHOOL ROAD
Prepared for:
+/- 97.36
Gaston Co., NC
LENNAR
FIGURE
7
DELINEATION MAP
Drawn By:
Reviewed By:
8130121
Subject to USACE/NCDEQ verification
NRN
ALL

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2021-02109County: GastonU.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Bessemer City
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Lennar Carolinas
Mark Henninger
Address: 6701 Carmel Road, Suite 425
Charlotte, NC 28226
Telephone Number: [phone]
E-mail: mark henningerklennar.com
Size (acres) 97.36 Nearest Town Bessemer Citv
Nearest Waterway Long Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050102 Coordinates Latitude:35.3001
Longitude:-81.2601
Location description: Project is located east of Costner School Road near the intersection with Todd Drive, in Bessemer City,
Gaston County,North Carolina. PIN(s): 220086,151795,152089
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property, thatmay be subjectto Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters have been
delineated, and the delineation has beenverifiedby the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries
of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation mapdated 8/30/2021. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination
maybe used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computationof
impacts, compensatory mitigationrequirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a
preliminary JD will treat allwaters and wetlands thatwould be affected in anyway by the permitted activity on the site as if they
are jurisdictionalwaters 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, youmayrequestanapproved JD, which is an appealable
action, by contactingthe Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property, thatmay be subjectto Section 404 ofthe Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the waters
have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdictiondetermination may not be used in the permit evaluation process.
Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective presumption of C WA/RHA
jurisdiction over allof the waters at the project area, which is not sufficiently accurate andreliable to support anenforceable
permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters 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 consultantto conduct a delineation that can
be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters ofthe United States within the above described project area/property subjectto the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers andHarbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 ofthe Clean WaterAct
(CWA)(33USC§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for
a period not to exceedfive years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waterson the above described project area/property subjectto thepermit requirements of Section 404 ofthe Clean
WaterAct(CWA)(33USC§ 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination maybe
relied upon fora periodnotto exceedfiveyears from the date ofthis notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may notbe able to accomplish
this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by
the Corps.
❑ The waters on y our project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. The
approximate boundaries of these waters are shown onthe enclosed delineationmapdatedDATE. We strongly suggest youhave
this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey

SAW-2021-02109
will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWAjurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in
the law or our published regulations, maybe relied upon for a periodnotto exceed five years.
❑ The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official
identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination maybe 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 subj ectto the
permit requirements of Section404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for a period notto exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one ofthe 20Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of CoastalMa nagement in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill materialwithin waters of the US, in cludin g wetlands, without a Department ofthe Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section301 of the Clean WaterAct (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters ofthe 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
rega rdin g this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Krystynka B Stygar at 252-545-0507 or
krystynka.b.stygar&msace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Based on information submitted by the applicant and available to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the project area exhibits criteria for waters of the U.S. as defined in 33
CFR 328, Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05, and 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, and/or the
Regional Supplement to the 1987 Manual: Eastern Piedmont and Mountains v2.0. See the
preliminary jurisdictional determination form dated 11/12/2021.
D. Remarks: See approximate limits ofjurisdiction on enclosed map entitled, "Costner School Road-
08/30/2021 "
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determinationhas been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may notbe 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)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appealunder Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 33 1. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. Ifyourequest to appealthis
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth StreetSW,FloorM9
Atlanta, Georgia 3 0303-8803
AND
PH I L I P.A. SHANNIN&USACE.ARMY.MIL
In order for an RFAto be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, thatit meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, andthat it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days ofthe date ofthe NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit anRFAform tot e Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date of JD: 11/12/2021 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2021-02109
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.anny.mil/customer-service-survey/.
Copy Furnished:

SAW-2021-02109
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Heath Caldwell
Address: 10612-D Providence Road
Charlotte, NC 28226
Telephone Number: [phone]
E-mail: heath.caldwell(a�wetlands-epg.com
Property Owner: BBB & C Enterprises LLC
Bobby & Cathy Conner
Address: PO Box 845
Cherrvvillc. NC 28021
Telephone Number: [phone]

a-J
L
O
Q
oC
r.
Threatened & Endangered Species
Report

Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species
Evaluation
For: Costner School Road
Gaston County, North Carolina
By: Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
Field investigation conducted during the week of September 27, 2021, and
March 18, 2022
Charlotte Office:
10612-D Providence Rd.
PMB 550
Charlotte, NC 28277
[phone]
I en. ri nd ner@wet Ian ds -epg. co m
www.wetlands-epg.cor, i
Ashesrile Office:
1070 Tunnel Rd., Bldg. I
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, NC 28805

Costner School Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
GENERAL LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:
The Costner School Road site (+/-97.36 acres) is located just east of Costner
School Road, and just north of Hwy 274 in Bessemer City, Gaston County, North
Carolina. The site can be found on the Bessemer City, NC USGS Topographic
Quadrangle Map; latitude is 35.8159 N, longitude is-80.721 W. The topography
consists of upland flats grading into drainages and unnamed tributaries to Long
Creek, with the elevation ranging from 790 to 830 ft. (Figures 1-4). The entire
site is old farmland in various stages of succession; there is disturbed pine
dominated cover on the upland slopes, and the lower slopes and stream
corridors are dominated by a disturbed mixed hardwood forest.
Figure 1:
�! W � / -`�J( LONG{REEK '• _
�� ' �-• - T Leo.• .rl _ '452
�� • � �� l �r r PROJE iT 6Q IIN NARY • •Y' - .s� `�, _ _ _. .
S
LIMITS
rfj • ry � S! r -697
. 1 -
"'- _ � '4 •fr F_ i Txaile't'
ti` yfv r 52 4h"
T. .ii r - - IAA•
LOCATI ON
Lat: 35.8159 ° N 1 : 4
Long: -80.8721°W USGS QUAD
HH FORK 50102 Besse 1993 y, NC •il � � - �!
`rl 1: 24,000
5011TH FORK CATAINBA 1993
A;.: COSTN ER SCHOOL R43AD Pre pared for:WEPG
j-7.36 Gastun Cu., NC LENNAR
FIGURE
1 USGS MAP Drawn By: Renewed By:
18 1 5vb)— 0 U-"CfMCDE4 ,NnJ Wn &LIC
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Costner School Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
METHODOLOGY:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/YJWRGEDX5FEARE7QXNYHDZYFKQ/resour
ces was referenced to determine the occurrence of Threatened, Endangered
and Protected species for Gaston County North Carolina, the results of which are
listed below (Table 1). Maps and aerial photographs were assembled, and the
site was investigated during the week of September 27, 2021.
Table 1: Threatened Z Endangered Z Protected Species listed for Gaston
County
*Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service - IPaC
**Data search on September 27, 2021
Group Name Status
Flowering Plants Dwarf -flowered heartleaf Threatened
(Hexastylis naniflora)
Flowering Plants Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered
(Helianthus
schweinitzii)
Reptiles Bog turtle (Glyptemys Similarity of
muhlenbergii) Appearance
(Threatened)
Mammals Northern Long- Eared Bat Threatened
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Birds Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Protected under the
leucocephalus) Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Costner School Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS:
Two plant species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Gaston 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).
• Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis nanif/ora), listed as Federally
Threatened, is only found in the upper Piedmont of North and South
Carolina. It grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, often in
association with mountain laurel.
Three animal species with federal protection are listed as potentially occurring in
Gaston 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.
• Bog Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenburgii), Bog turtles live in the mud, grass
and sphagnum moss of bogs, swamps, and marshy meadows. These
wetlands are usually fed by cool springs flowing slowly over the land,
creating the wet, muddy soil needed by the turtles.
• 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.
WEPG#00972 4
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Costner School Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
RESULTS:
The entire site is old farmland in various stages of succession; there is disturbed
pine dominated cover on the upland slopes, and the lower slopes and stream
corridors are dominated by a disturbed mixed hardwood forest. There are small
trails and dirt roads throughout the site. Some areas are invaded by Kudzu
(Pueraria lobata).
The disturbed pine dominated old fields on the uplands include Loblolly Pine
(Pinus taeda), Virginia Pine (P. virginiana), and Shortleaf Pine (P. echinata).
Lower slopes, drainages and stream corridors are dominated by disturbed
hardwoods including, Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip Poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), White Oak (Quercus alba), Red Oak (Q. rubra),
Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa), Pignut Hickory (C. glabra), Hackberry
(Celtis laevigata), American Elm (Ulmus americana), and White Ash (Fraxinus
americans). Subcanopy species include Red Maple (Acerrubrum), Sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Flowering Dogwood
(Corpus f/orida), American Holly (Ilex opaca), Mulberry (Morus rubra), Winged
Elm (Ulmus alata), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), and Eastern Red Cedar
(Juniperus virginiana). Shrubs include Black Haw (Viburnum prunifolium),
Multiflora Rose (Rosa multif/ora), Strawberry Bush (Euonymus americanus),
Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia).
Vines present are Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia Creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Catbrier (Smilax
sp.), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Kudzu (Pueraria lobata). Herbs
include Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Christmas Fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), Running Pine (Lycopodium f/abelliforme), Downy Rattlesnake
Plantain (Goodyera pubescens), Hawkweed (Hieracium venosum), Ebony
Spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Virginia Chain -fern (Woodwardia virginica),
False Nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), River Cane, (Arundinaria gigantea), and
Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium vimineum). Individuals of the genus
Hexastylis were observed along the southeast flowing tributary and on March 18,
2022 the Dlants were identified as Hexastvlis minor.
The old field edges and semi -open areas on site are covered with successional
scrub/shrub community dominated by Winged Elm, (Ulmus alata), Red Cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), Smooth Sumac (Rhus
glabra), Groundsel (Baccharis halimifolia), Japanese Honeysuckle, Catbrier, and
Poison Ivy.
WEPG#00972
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

Costner School Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Results
Individuals of the genus Hexastylis were observed on slopes adjacent to a
southeast flowing tributary and on March 18, 2022 the plants were
identified as Hexastylis minor. Calyx tube openings and lobe lengths of
the flowers significantly exceeded the maximum sizes for Hexastylis
nanif/ora. WEPG concludes Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis
nanif/ora) does not occur on the site.
Although Schweinitz's Sunflower is listed as occurring in Gaston County, it
is limited to eastern portions of the county, and the USFWS IPaC map
indicates the Costner School Road site is outside of the species
distribution range. Nevertheless, this species was included in the survey
efforts and all potential habitats for Schweinitz's Sunflower along the
roadsides and transitional edges were examined, and the species was not
observed. WEPG concludes Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) does not occur on the site.
• The site has no suitable habitat for Bog Turtles. WEPG concludes Bog
Turtle (C/emmys muh/enbergii) does not occur on the site.
No habitat exists on the site for Bald Eagles, and there were no sightings
nor were any nesting sites observed. WEPG concludes Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us) does not occur on the site.
• Comparing this site location to the USFWS Asheville office's website
(http-//www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC. 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 Lona-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 this site is recommended at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa R. Gaffney
Biologist
September 24, 2021
31
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group

Costner School Road - 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 nanif/ora).
• 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.
WEPG#00972 7
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Costner School Road - Threatened /Endangered /Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 2: VICINITY MAP
z71,
Bessemer City
G & G Taxidermy 19
3 ra
9
a` C7
Annlas
C'
0°
Costne<`�
G
Max Baxter Roofing
B
a'
PRO]ECT BOUNDARY
STUDY LIMITS
u
Sose
�4yq �6
a
3
�
f o
c
BARKER'S RIDGE
Ingles Markefs�
QCBM
Precision �� Flowers
�Co
7
Parts Manufacturer (Natu
'Ms+r+e.gye
Q CVS
R
WEST GASTONI
T The
Family
Pizzagalli
R�
Id's
2�a
9
cpje`
ant
3 ADS Tosaf USA
r1;3 n
Dole Fresh Vegetables
N
acrrs� COSTNER SCHOOL ROAR Prepared forWFPG
Gaston Co., NC LENNAR
FIGURE
2 VICINffY MAP Drawn By Reviewed By!
OSIIB121 Subject to USACEIIVCDE4 verification BLK
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Costner School Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 3: AERIAL MAP
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

Costner School Road - Threatened / Endangered / Protected Species Evaluation
Figure 4: NRCS PUBLISHED SOIL MAP
` TaE 1
. A T-
s r ►
t) R h `►n PROJECT BOUNDARY
�", J STUDY LIMITS
T Jhg TaB
P�� Cc97 I ad G02 Gab?
� _ Ga62
! 2
Cos x G
a
Ta
` `♦ NRCS Sail Survey Manuscript 7 aR
ti Gaston County 1989
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Nana Acres In A01 PerCMI! nrA01
:c132 Coal sandy day $p . 2 to 6 3.2 j
pmcmt stapes, moderately
arndmd
C f a Cowl-U than land mmplex, 2 to 7.3 7
e percent slopes
r:rG Caul -Urban land c plex. 8 tp 0.0
1fi Percent slopes
Cr A 6a la loam. 0 to 2 pemarit 12.1 12.d%
slopem. lrequenity flooded
t '!h. ' Lloyd sandy Gay barn. 2 10 8 1 i.� 111%
Percent slopes, moderately
eroded
I. .:i is Lloyd sandy day lwm. 6 to 15 32.3 33.0%
pelCanl elopes, mudmataty
eroded
I.r F Tatum OrPreey low. 2 10 61216 12.776
PMamt sl6Pea
T,r) Tawm gravely bam, 8 to 15 0.0 G.8%
percent slopes
T.1E. Taaan gravemy loam, 15 to 25 17 1 17.5%
percent slopes
IJnF tlwharrle stony loam, 25 to 45 oil0.9%
percent slopes, very
Gotadery
Totalsforwrea lffbeff l 97.6j 100.0% GaBL
Acres! COSTNER SCHOOL ROAD Prepared far
+/- 97.35 Gaston Co., NC LE NNAR
FIGURE
4 SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPT NEAP Drawn By: Reviewed By:
081I8127 Subject to USACEJNCDEq veriflcotion BILK
TA
aQ
3 L 1
cee 2I
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC.

ua
FTM
SE� .Fe
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
May 19, 2022
Lisa Gaffney
WEPG
10612-D Providence Road
PMB 550
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
[e-mail]
Subject: Costner School Road Residential Development; Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Lisa Gaffney:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated April 19, 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 97 forested acres in Bessemer City, 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.

Please note that on March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to reclassify the northern
long-eared bat (NLEB) as endangered under the Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia has ordered the Service to complete a new final listing determination for the NLEB by
November 2022 (Case 1:15-cv-00477, March 1, 2021). The bat, currently listed as threatened,
faces extinction due to the range -wide impacts of white -nose syndrome (WNS), a deadly fungal
disease affecting cave -dwelling bats across the continent. The proposed reclassification, if
finalized, would remove the current 4(d) rule for the NLEB, as these rules may be applied only
to threatened species. Depending on the type of effects a project has on NLEB, the change in the
species' status may trigger the need to re -initiate consultation for any actions that are not
completed and for which the Federal action agency retains discretion once the new listing
determination becomes effective (anticipated to occur by December 30, 2022). If your project
may result in incidental take of NLEB after the new listing goes into effect this will need to be
addressed in an updated consultation that includes an Incidental Take Statement. If your project
may require re -initiation of consultation, please contact our office for additional guidance.
Additional information about this animal including its proposed reclassification can be found
here: https://www.fws.gov/species/northern-long-eared-bat-m. ot�ptentfionalis
Your correspondence indicates that suitable habitat is present onsite for the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the federally threatened dwarf-flwoered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora). However, targeted botanical surveys conducted during the
appropriate timeframes (September 27, 2021 and March 18, 2022) did not detect evidence for
these species at that time. We acknowledge that targeted botanical surveys detected a population
of Hexastylis minor onsite which is not federally protected at this time. The presence of H. minor
was diagnosed using floristic characters. 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%20listed%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
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 4-2-22-535.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

a-J
L
O
Q
oC
u
O
V)
oC
c�
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]
November 23, 2021
Ms. Amber Lipsky
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, North Carolina 28105
Subject: Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review
Costner School Road Development Tract
Bessemer City, Gaston County, North Carolina
R.S. Webb & Associates No. 21-678-032
Dear Ms. Lipsky:
BACKGROUND
During November 2021, R. S. Webb & Associates (RSWA) conducted a cultural resources literature
review for the proposed Costner School Road development tract near Bessemer City, Gaston County,
North Carolina. The proj ect area covers approximately 97 acres located east of Costner School Road
and north of State Route (SR) 274 (Bessemer City Road), northeast of Bessemer City, in west Gaston
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, Gaston 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
Alabamamaps.ua.edu.

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Costner School Road Tract, Gaston County Page 2
November 23, 2021
The following primary sources were found to be useful in searching for historic resources within and
adjacent to the project area:
• 1891 Official Military Atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. reprinted, 1983)
• 1909 USDA Soil Map, Gaston County Sheet
• 1911 USGS Lincolnton, North Carolina 15-minute quadrangle
• 1938, 1949, 1953, 1963, and 1968 State Highway and Public Works Commission Maps of
Gaston County
• 1944 reprint of 1911 USGS Lincolnton, North Carolina 15-minute quadrangle
• 1956, 1960, 1965, 1968, 1978, and 1983 aerial photographs of Gaston County
• 1973 USGS Bessemer City, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle
• 1993-2018 Google Earth aerial photography.
RESULTS
Previous Archeological Investigations: Records provided by OSA indicate at least two previous
cultural resources investigations located within 1.0 km of the study tract, one of which took place
within approximately 500 m of the current study tract (Figure 1). The closest previous project
included an archeological survey of a 2-acre tract located 430 m west of the project area (May 1989).
Previous Architectural Investigations: According to SHPO personnel, the North Carolina HPOWEB
database is the definitive source of architectural survey information for Gaston County.
National Register of Historic Places: There are no NRHP-listed historic properties located within
1.0 km of the current study tract. The closest NRHP-listed property is Central School in Bessemer
City located approximately 1.8 km southwest of the project area (Figure 1).
Gaston County Historic Resources: The HPOWEB database identifies no state study -list sites, local
landmarks or properties determined eligible for the NRHP within 1.0 km of the study tract. The
database shows two surveyed -only historic properties located within 1.0 km of the study tract (Figure
1). The closest recorded historic resource, Ragan Spinning Mill and Village (Resource No.
GS0091), is located along and north of Oates Road from approximately 470 m to 850 m southeast
of the study tract; surveyed resource boundaries are unknown. Perhaps the most integral part of the
resource and the part located closest to the study tract, the historic mill facility, is no longer standing.
The next closest resource is surveyed -only Resource No. GS0374 (Ormond House); it is located
north of North Iowa Street, approximately 900 m southwest and/or west of the study tract.
Recorded Archeological Sites: The OSA database indicates that two recorded archeological sites
have been identified within 1.0 km of the project area (Figure 1). These include a 19' century house
site (31 GS 149) and a prehistoric site (31 GS 181) located 300 to 500 m west of the study tract. Site
31 GS 149 was assessed and determined ineligible for the NRHP. Site 31 GS 181 was found to have
been disturbed by construction at nearby Rhynes Airfield, but has not been assessed for NRHP-
eligibility.
Revolutionary War Actions/Features: There were no reported Revolutionary War military events in
Gaston County. Following the twin defeats at Charlotte, North Carolina (38 km southeast on
September 26, 1780) and at King's Mountain, South Carolina (19 km southwest on October 7,
1780), the British army circumnavigated Gaston County (by the south and west) before passing

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Costner School Road Tract, Gaston County Page 3
November 23, 2021
eastward across the Catawba River at Cowan Ford (31 km northeast) in early February 1781 (Lewis
2021).
Civil WarActions/Features: Review ofthe official atlas of the Civil War (Davis et al. 1983) revealed
that no significant Civil War military activity occurred in present-day Gaston County. Union
General William T. Sherman, following the capture of Columbia, South Carolina on February 17,
1865, moved north to the vicinity of Lancaster County, South Carolina (75 km southeast), but his
army then turned northeast and moved toward Laurel Hill and Fayetteville, North Carolina, thus
bypassing the project region (Davis et al. 1983).
Historic Cemeteries: The USGS topographic maps reviewed show no cemeteries mapped within 1.0
km of the project area. The closest mapped cemeteries are more than 1.5 km to the west and
southwest of the study tract.
Structures on Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs: Soil maps and topographic maps produced
in the first quarter of the 20' century show current Costner School Road and SR 274 as a primary
roads. The maps show a secondary road arching from Costner School Road northeast then passing
southeast through the study tract to SR 274; the maps also show two buildings located north of the
of the secondary road in the north -central section of the study tract (Figure 1).
The 1938 county highway map depicts Costner School Road and SR 274; it shows buildings being
located only near rights -of -way. No roads are shown in the study tract, but three buildings are noted
east of Costner Road, possibly north and west of the project area. The county highway map
published in 1968 shows increased occupation along the eastern side of Costner Road and along a
road leading north from SR 274, near the southeastern study tract corner boundary. No roads or
buildings are shown in the study tract. The 1973 USGS topographic map shows a different access
corridor (Bobbie Lane) leading to two buildings or two groups of buildings in the northwestern part
of the study tract (Figure 1). Three additional buildings were located in the study tract in 1973
(Figure 1): two at the Costner School Road right-of-way in the northwestern part of the project area;
and one along a road leading from the east in the southeastern part of the study tract.
Aerial photography from 1956 shows nearly all of the study tract under cultivation; woodlands are
located near buildings in the northwestern part of the project tract, along the northern study tract
boundary, and along a creek in the eastern and southern parts of the study tract. At least two
buildings are present in the northwestern portion of the project area and two are present in the
extreme northwestern part of the tract east of Costner School Road (Figure 1). Aerial photos from
1969 show a new building in the northwestern section of the study tract and access to that area
shifted from the western part of the study tract to the northwest via Bobbie Lane. Project area land
appears to be under cultivation or in a fallow state; woodlands are present in the southern part of the
project area. During the period 1973 through 1984 development near the northwestern, eastern, and
southern study tract boundaries increases significantly. Woodlands in the southern part of the study
tract continue to grow and mature, but the distribution of buildings, roads, and open land is
unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS
There are no NRHP-listed properties, determined -eligible properties, study -listed resources,
designated local landmarks, cemeteries, otherwise recorded historic resources or recorded

Findings - Cultural Resources Literature Review, Costner School Road Tract, Gaston County Page 4
November 23, 2021
archeological sites located within or adjacent to the study tract. The closest recorded cultural
resource is archeological site 31 GS 149, a 19' century house site located 300 m west of the project
area. Historic maps and aerial photographs indicate extensive agricultural use of study tract and the
presence of at least four buildings in the northwestern part of the project area during the 20th century.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Lipsky, 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
(f4 J YtIr
Robert S. (Steve) Webb
President and Senior Principal Archeologist
Attachments: Figure 1
REFERENCES
Davis, G.B., L. J. Perry and J. W. Kirkley, compiled by C. D. Cowles
1983 Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.
Reprint of the 1891-1895 edition. The Fairfax Press, New York.
Lewis, J.D.
2021 The American Revolution in North Carolina. Internet -Online. Found at:
http://www.carolana.comNC/Revolution/home.html. Accessed June 2021.
May, J.A.
1989 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Selected Portions of the South Fork Catawba
River Watershed: Gaston and Lincoln Counties, North Carolina. Schiele Museum
of Natural History. Gastonia, North Carolina

.�.• i 10�'
QUADRANGLEL4CATION l�J '
r .. • r .Costner
School Road
. 31GS181 Bobbie _� • �L�
Lane xT
`31GS149
a
May i Proje t Area
#�Y •� 1 ; ` � �(1989)�' aria � e9� � ,' 1
r 74 , � ` jGS03 • ; i .• ,� °Mill Facilit,
+ (Ormond House'
n• —Surveyed Onlyj' (No Longer Pre
: `� •- 4 r = i � 1998=20051
ppi) 't ❑
—' P me
�.�.'i� i¢ 11o11s�i Aiem Ch i
a.
NRHP=Iied_.`
Central -School .. jy� ..; + _•.t, r_�, ' r�.a :;asa - s�
[ -•+�;■ I
owed
' 1f
1L'• SQp
;ent,
,z •,
l u .G ■n
1 � S n ., ... — •�. f ti
i 4 W a 711 •
(Ragan4Spimm�gF r
•�-&•'- / Mill and,Village) ¢"
Structure on Historic Maps and Aerials Previous Cultural Resource Project
013 Recorded Historic Resource ---' Road on Historic Maps and Aerials
0 Recorded Archeological Site
Map Reference: 7.5-Minute USGS Quadrangles
Bessemer City (1993) and
Gastonia North (1993), North Carolina
Scale
0 610 meters
0 2000 feet
Figure 1 Project Area, Project Area and Cultural Resources Location Map