20230119 Ver 1_USACE More Info Request_20230323

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
March 23, 2023
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2019-00292
Re: Skyway Logistics Park
Mr. Ron Coffey
EastGroup Properties, Inc.
3495 Piedmont Road NE, Building 11, Suite 350
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
Dear Mr. Coffey:
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to permanently discharge fill material into a total of 0.971 acre of wetland,
0.06 acre of open water, and 557 linear feet (If) of stream channel, associated with the
proposed construction of the Skyway Logistics Park and associated infrastructure and
attendant features. The project area is located within the Lower Catawba watershed, at
2928 Shopton Road, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your
proposal by public notice dated February 7, 2023. Comments in response to the notice
were received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), North Carolina
Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (SHPO), North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (DWR), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(WRC). The comments received are enclosed for your information and to provide you
with the opportunity to address any of the stated concerns.
Further, on February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to
comply with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides
for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least
damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to reduce
impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensation for remaining unavoidable
impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us to process your
application, in compliance with the MOA, we request that you provide the following
additional information:
A. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available
only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable

alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other alternatives,
including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have applied and
provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or
wetland areas.
Specifically, please add to the alternatives analysis provided in your
Individual Permit application (January 19, 2023):
a. Off -site Alternative 1 (MLK Way) lacked specific information
related to potential aquatic resources onsite. The application
stated, "a delineation of the wetlands has not been completed,
and the extent of wetland impacts needed to accomplish the
proposed project is unknown." However, the application then
states "topographic and wetland constraints could potentially
reduce the buildable area of the site to approximately 63
acres." Therefore, Off -site Alternative 1 needs to clearly show
or approximate how much (i.e., linear feet and/or acres)
aquatic features (i.e., streams, wetlands, and/or open waters)
are on the entire project area so it can be used to directly
compare this off -site alternative to the Preferred Alternative
which will help the Corps determine which alternative is the
Least Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA).
b. Similar to Off -site Alternative 1, Off -site Alternatives 2 through
5 also did not quantify the aquatic resources onsite. Therefore,
Off -site Alternatives 2-5 need to clearly show or approximate
how much (i.e., linear feet and/or acres) aquatic features (i.e.,
streams, wetlands, and/or open waters) are on the entire
project areas so it can be used to directly compare each one
of these off -site alternatives to the Preferred Alternative which
will help the Corps determine which alternative is the Least
Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
c. Off -site alternatives 1-3 each state "minimal road
improvements may be required to compensate for the
increased traffic accessing interstate(s) but otherwise no
improvements are expected to the transportation corridors."
This is a vague, generic statement that does not provide any
substance or ability to analyze each off -site alternative in
relation to site access, road improvements, and/or traffic
congestion. Therefore, please provide a descriptive narrative
for each off -site alternative which clearly demonstrates the
-2-

minimal impacts to roads and traffic issues related to the
construction of Off -site Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.
d. Off -site alternatives 4 and 5 each state "major road
improvements or road improvements may be required to
compensate for the increased traffic accessing interstate(s)
but otherwise no improvements are expected to the
transportation corridors." This is a vague, generic statement
that does not provide any substance or ability to analyze each
off -site alternative in relation to site access, road
improvements, and/or traffic congestion. Therefore, please
provide a descriptive narrative for each off -site alternative
which clearly demonstrates the major impacts to roads and
traffic issues related to the construction of Off -site Alternatives
4 and 5.
e. Off -site Alternative 3's proposed project area is currently
zoned residential and would require rezoning approval. Please
provide more details on what it would take the applicant to
rezone this area to commercial/industrial from a cost
standpoint, timeframe, permit approvals, etc.
f. Off -site Alternative 4's proposed project area is currently
zoned residential but has been requested to be rezoned to
industrial; however, it has not been finalized. Please provide
more details on what it would take the applicant to rezone this
area to commercial/industrial from a cost standpoint,
timeframe, permit approvals, etc.
g. The On -site Alternative Analysis only include one on -site
alternative compared to the Preferred Alternative. Typically,
this on -site alternative analysis includes multiple on -site
alternatives with different site layouts or configurations and
potentially varying amounts of aquatic resources impacted.
Also, this section also clearly lays out the siting criteria used to
rank and analyze the Preferred Alternative compared to all the
other on -site alternatives; very similar to the comparison done
for off -site alternatives. In addition, a table like Table 4
(Alternative Analysis Site Matrix) would be beneficial to easily
understand all the siting criteria/requirements needed and how
they rank and are compared between the Preferred Alternative
and all other on -site alternatives. Therefore, please revise the
On -site Alternative Analysis to include these recommendations
along with any additional details, maps, site layouts, which
clearly show each alternative analyzed.
-3-

B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to
minimize losses of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all
that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
I have evaluated the avoidance and minimization included in your
application and have determined the details to be generally sufficient
for our evaluation.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required
for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has
employed all appropriate and practicable minimization. Please indicate your
plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or
provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable
measures.
The applicant has proposed to restore approximately 1395 If of stream
channel on -site and to purchase 1114 stream mitigation units (SMUs)
from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to
offset the unavoidable loss to 557 If of stream channel. Further the
applicant proposed to purchase 2.15 wetland mitigation units (WMUs)
from the NCDMS to offset the unavoidable loss to 0.974 acre of
wetland. Since the January 23, 2023, application submittal, the Corps
has revised mitigation requirements in the Lower Catawba watershed
to be a standard 2:1 mitigation to impact ratio, unless NCSAM/WAM
forms demonstrate a lower quality system. Therefore, the applicant will
be required to provide 1114 SMUs and 1.073 WMUs to offset the
unavoidable loss to aquatic resources.
While the application did include conceptual stream restoration
designs, there was no narrative to support the design. To reiterate the
comments in EPA's comment letter, the stream restoration plan should
follow the 2008 mitigation rule (33 CFR 332.4, 332.5, 332.6, and
332.7) to include: Site selection, site protection instrument
(conservation easement, etc.), baseline information, determination of
credits, mitigation work plan, maintenance plan, performance
standards, monitoring requirements, long-term management plan
(long-term steward), adaptive management plan (to include potential
wetland loss), financial assurances, 7-year monitoring plan to include
the submittal of annual monitoring reports. This compensatory
mitigation plan should be comparable to that of a mitigation bank or in -
lieu fee site. Please submit the compensatory mitigation plan as an
appendix to the permit application.
M

Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing to process your
permit request:
1) The application stated the applicant received Nationwide Permits (NWP) 39 and
58 which authorized permanent stream impacts of 115 linear feet, 0.062 acre of
wetlands and temporary stream impacts of 60 linear feet to facilitate the
construction of an industrial distribution/warehouse logistics center. Please
provide why the applicant needs additional commercial distribution space while
impacting additional aquatic resources to develop an even larger logistics center
than what was previously authorized by the Corps under the NWP program.
2) The application did not provide enough information to determine and understand
Phase 1 (i.e., previously permitted NWP 39 and 58 — Gaffney Site). Therefore,
please provide more information such as but not limited to for Phase 1:
a. Has the applicant begun construction on Phase 1;
b. Expected construction completion of Phase 1; and
c. Why is Phase 1 only not feasible for the applicant to construct.
d. Are the warehouses included in Phase 1 pre -leased?
3) Phase 1 (Gaffney) was issued a permit modification on June 2, 2022, to
permanently impact 115 linear feet of stream and 0.062 acre of wetlands which
required the applicant to purchase 460 linear feet of stream credit and 0.28 acre
of wetland credit. The application provided information showing the previously
required compensatory mitigation was purchased through the NCDMS in -lieu fee
program, specifically the 03050103 Expanded Service Area. However, the Corps
required 0.28 acre of wetland credits to be purchased but the Invoice letter from
NCDMS showed the applicant only purchased 0.25 acre, missing 0.03 acres of
required wetland credits. Please clarify this discrepancy.
4) Please provide your responses to the public comments received.
5) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional
information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project.
6) Please also note, compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is
required prior to issuance of our final permitting decision. In your permit
application you do address the Northern long-eared bat, but that is no longer
listed in IPAC as being present within your project area. The Tricolored bat is
identified in this region and is anticipated to be up -listed in the coming months. It
would be advantageous to ensure the proposed project is compliant with Section
7 should the Tricolored bat be listed prior to commencement of construction
-5-

activities. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that they would concur
with a may affect determination if the permit is conditioned to avoid tree clearing
between April 1 and October 15. Therefore, please indicate if trees have already
been cleared on -site; and if not, if the applicant would be willing to avoid tree
clearing during the April 1 to October 15 timeline.
The above requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (704)
589-8397 or Samantha.J.DaileyCa-)usace.army. mi1.
Sincerely,
O
Samantha Dailey
Chief, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies furnished electronically:
Ms. Jennifer Robertson
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
0robe rtson(a)atlasenvi.com
Mr. Todd Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
bowers.todd(a)epa.gov
Ms. Sue Homewood
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
sue. homewood(a-)-ncdenr.gov
I on

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
February 8, 2023
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
CharlotteNCREG I (d)usace.army.mil
Re: Construct industrial park, 2928 Shopton Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, SAW-2019-00292,
ER 21-1635
Dear Mr. Roden -Reynolds:
Thank you for your public notice of February 8, 2023, concerning the above -referenced undertaking. We
have reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(cncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(1� ��UU�
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 2:52 PM
To: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] FW: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
SAW-2019-00292
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Bryan,
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch has reviewed the subject Individual Permit
Public Notice under DA Action ID SAW-2019-00292 dated February 8, 2023. It is our understanding that the
applicant, EastGroup Properties, Inc., seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact 557 linear feet
of stream channel, 0.974 acre of wetlands, and 0.06 acre of open water along with 1,217 linear feet of onsite
stream restoration for the construction of the Skyway Logistics Park (Site) industrial distribution/warehouse
logistics center in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
According to the Public Notice, Applicant's Stated Purpose, and Project Description, the purpose of the
proposed project is to construct a high -quality, light industrial center to support high -volume logistics for
warehouse and distribution facilities that supply goods and services to transportation hubs in the city of
Charlotte in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Phase 2 of the proposed project would involve constructing five (5) warehouse and distribution buildings, along
with associated infrastructure (i.e., access roads, and parking lots) and stormwater management facilities.
Specifically, the site plan includes a total of 796, 000 square feet of warehouse space in five buildings, 899
automobile parking spaces and 87 truck (tractor -trailer) parking spaces. Implementation of the proposed
project would permanently impact 557 linear feet of stream channel, 0.974 acre of wetlands, and 0.06 acre of
open water along with 1,217 linear feet of onsite stream restoration. Phase 2 permanent impacts would be
considered cumulative with the already approved Phase I permanent impacts. Cumulatively, the proposed
project would permanently impact 672 linear feet of stream channel, 1.04 acre(s) of wetland, and 0.06 acre of
open water, and permanently convert 0.062 acre of wetland.
Compensatory Mitigation for Phase 2: The applicant has chosen to restore 1,217 linear feet of stream channel
onsite and proposed to purchase 1,114 SMUs and 2.15 WMUs from the NCDMS to offset the unavoidable loss
of aquatic resources associated with Phase 2.
At this time, EPA Region 4 has a few site -specific comments or concerns with the project as presented in the
Public Notice. The applicant has chosen a robust amount of compensatory mitigation for the direct impact of
streams and wetlands without considering the function or quality of the aquatic resources that will be destroyed.
EPA has assumed that the applicant is considering all aquatic resources as high quality and is replacing them as
such by purchasing an appropriate amount of credits from NCDMS based on that assumption. Additionally, the
applicant has offered to restore over 1,200 feet of streams on -site in the vicinity of the now drained Maynard
Pond. A restoration plan was not provided and if the applicant is applying this directly towards mitigation
credit, the standards for restoring those streams and returning functional uplift, are much higher. While I

applaud the applicant for providing on -site stream restoration, it should not be considered as compensatory
mitigation unless the applicant is willing to provide a conservation easement, sufficient financial assurances,
annual monitoring of stream and buffers, and provide annual reports for up to 7 years to the NCIRT for
evaluation on the site performance. This is the standard the IRT applies to all projects that are performing
wetland and stream restoration, enhancement and/or preservation that will generate mitigation credit.
Additionally, the applicant is encouraged to provide detailed stream restoration plans for agency evaluation
especially as there is a risk in wetland loss in the vicinity of the former Maynard Pond. Current delineated
wetlands are at risk of losing wetland hydrology if the restored streams do not function well and fail to
periodically flood the adjacent floodplains. This appears to be a system that will necessarily depend on the
streams to provide the hydrology to maintain these wetlands and the applicant may be risking a further loss of
wetlands; losses that may eventually be considered impacts and thus require additional compensatory
mitigation. This risk is further exacerbated by the severe change in watershed impervious surfaces and
regrading that may cause higher peaks in flooding and will depend heavily on the storm water management on -
site to alleviate some of that extreme change of the natural hydroperiod. EPA encourages the applicant to
provide a detailed analysis of the change in hydrology expected along with the restoration plans for agency
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on DA Action ID SAW-2019-00292 associated with the
construction of the Skyway Logistics Park industrial distribution/warehouse logistics center in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina.
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
919.523.2637 cell/telework
404.562.9225 office
Bowers.todd&eTgov
"Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you."
— Wendell Berry
From: Wallace, Nancy L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:13 AM
Subject: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
Importance: High

As you requested, you are hereby notified that Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of
Engineers has issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices
portion of the Regulatory Division Home Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT
(.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at
https://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Public-Notices/
As with anything you download from the internet, be sure to check for viruses prior to opening. The
current notice involves:
Corps Action ID#: SAW-2019-00292
Issue Date: February 8, 2023
Applicant: EastGroup Properties, Inc.
Expiration Date: 5:00 p.m., March 13, 2023
Point of Contact: Bryan Roden -Reynolds, 704-510-1440, bryan.k.roden-reynolds(a)..usace.army.miI
Project Description: The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from
EastGroup Properties, Inc. seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact 557 linear feet of
stream channel, 0.974 acres of wetlands, and 0.06 acres of open water along with 1,217 linear feet of
onsite stream restoration for the construction of an industrial distribution/warehouse logistics center in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The purpose of the proposed project purpose is to construct a high -quality, light industrial center to
support high -volume logistics for warehouse and distribution facilities that supply goods and services
to transportation hubs in the city of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. This will result
in impacts to 557 linear feet of stream channel, 0.974 acres of wetlands, and 0.06 acres of open
water. All impacts will result from fill and grading associated with the construction of commercial
development site. In addition to the permanent stream, wetland, and open water impacts that will
result in the loss of waters, the applicant proposes onsite stream restoration to 1,217 linear feet of
stream channel.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This email was sent out as a result of subscribing to the Wilmington
District regulatory program public notices. Please reply to this email with the subject or
message "unsubscribe" to remove your address from future mailings.

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 13, 2023
Corps Action ]D# SAW-2019-00292
DWR# 20230119
Wake County
Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
Delivered via email to. [e-mail]
Subject Project: Skyway Logistics Park
Mecklenburg County
USACE ID: SAW-2019-00292
Dear Ms. Dailey:
On behalf of the NC Division of Water Resources, we respectfully request that you consider the
following comments within your review of the 404 Individual Permit request for the above referenced
project:
L The applicant has developed limited site selection criteria which appears more limited than the
stated project purpose and which appears to prematurely disqualify all offsite alternatives. The
Division has recently issued 401 certifications to other logistics parks serving the Mecklenburg
County market area that are in adjacent counties and although those sites were farther from
Charlotte, they were determined to be competitive market sites by those applicants.
2 The Division commends the applicant for their efforts to reduce impacts to jurisdictional
features when compared to the Highest and Best Use On -site Alternative Plan, however, it
appears that further avoidance and minimization is possible on the site. Much of the
justification for the proposed speculative building sizes - which necessitate jurisdictional
impacts, appears to rely on economic and construction advantages with larger buildings.
3. The applicant has proposed Permittee Responsible Mitigation consisting of stream restoration
within recently drained ponds. The Division has significant questions and concerns regarding
the proposed mitigation plan and will need to conduct a careful evaluation of the proposed
mitigation plan as part of the review of the application for a 401 certification.
r�oan�cnaai D � Q��
oapwu�.natnrka.nnwounxr\ /�
Nonh Carolina Dcpal lment of Ell\ ironmental Quality I D"ision of Water Resources
512 North Salisbul)' Street I 1611 Mad Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-161 I
919 707.9000

Corps Action ID# SAW-2019-00292
DWR# 20230119
Mecklenburg County
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your considering the Division's comments during your review of this Individual Permit. If
you have any questions, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-813-1863 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
r
Stephanie Goss, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Electronic cc: Jennifer Robertson, Atlas Environmental
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
Filename: 20230119-Skyway Logistics_Mecklenburg-PN Comments to USACE.docx
DENorth Carolina Depmlment of Ell\ lronmental Quality I Di,is;on of Water Resources
11 e:!��512 North Sabsblll)' Street 1 1611 Mail S mice Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-161 1
n i r 'RQ1 1 919.707. 9000
Depttmmt of EmMonmenW 0-M

F1 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
Via Email
13 March 2023
Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Amry Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Dr., Suite 614
Charlote, NC 28262
Ms. Jennifer Robertson
Atlas Environmental
338 S. Sharon Amity Road, #411
Charlotte, NC 28211
SUBJECT: Public Notice Comments for the Individual Permit Application for the Skyway Logistics
Park, 2928 Shopton Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. USACE
Action ID: SAW-2019-00292; DEQ No. 20230119vl.
Dear Mses. Dailey and Robertson,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
On behalf of EastGroup Properties Inc. (applicant), Atlas Environmental has submitted an Individual
Permit (IP) application for the Skyway Logistics Park located at 2928 Shopton Road in Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The proposed project is Phase 2 of a commercial development and
will involve permanent impacts to 557 linear feet of streams and 0.9737 acre of wetlands. Coffey Creek
and its unnamed tributaries flow through the site. Coffey Creek in the Catawba River Basin is classified
as a Class C stream by the NC Division of Water Resources. The applicant is proposed to Permittee
Responsible Mitigation for 1395 linear feet of streams and 0.498 acre of wetland, and the remaining
mitigation credits will be purchased from the NC Division of Mitigation Services, which will need to use
the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirements.
NCWRC has the following comments and recommendations:
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

13 March 2023 Page 2 NCWRC Comments
Skyway Logistics Parkway IP
USACE Action ID: SAW-2019-00491
1. NCWRC has concerns for the large amounts of impacts to aquatic resources, especially since it
will require mitigation in the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area. We recommend the applicant
further reduce impacts. One option is to use an underground stormwater detention system to
allow more space for design layout changes to reduce impacts.
2. We would like to see a mitigation plan for the Permittee Responsible Mitigation, which should
include a planting and monitoring plan. Many of the bare root and gallon plants are not native to
the Piedmont, specifically Mecklenburg County. We recommend a plant list that consists of
species typically found in reference streams in Mecklenburg County and the appropriate natural
vegetation community, as described by M.P. Schafale in The Guide to the Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation (https://www.ncOp.org/references/nhp-
publications/fourth-approximation-descriptions).
Furthermore, non-native plants should not be used for seeding disturbed areas. Specifically, avoid
using Bermudagrass, redtop, tall fescue, and lespedeza, which are invasive and/or non-native. A
list of alternatives to non-native species has been attached. Alternatively, use a grain, such as
oats, wheat, or rye for temporary cover and native seed mixes for permeant seeding. We
recommend planting native, wildflower seed mixes that will create pollinator habitat within the
project boundary.
4. The IP states that the project will have no effects on physical or chemical characteristics of an
aquatic system. However, placing fill in aquatic resources can alter hydrology, result in
significant negative impacts to downstream areas, and eliminate aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
habitat. Additional impervious surface results in an increase in stormwater runoff that can exert
significant impacts on stream morphology. This will cause further degradation of aquatic habitat
through accelerated stream bank erosion, channel and bedload changes, altered substrates, and
scouring of the stream channel. In addition, pollutants (e.g., sediment, heavy metals, pesticides,
and fertilizers) washed from developed landscapes can adversely affect and extirpate species
downstream.
5. Headwater streams can significantly reduce nutrient export to rivers (Alexander et al. 2000;
Peterson et al. 2001) and the condition of the stream in the lower reaches is closely dependent on
the condition in the headwaters (Vannote et al. 1980). Furthermore, placing fill in aquatic
resources can alter hydrology, result in significant negative impacts to downstream areas, and
eliminate aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat. Protecting headwater streams and their buffers
are important to protect water quality, reduce sedimentation, and provide aquatic habitat. The NC
Department of Environmental Quality Study of the State's Riparian Buffer Protection Program
document (https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/19092) states that a minimum 50-foot
buffer is required on intermittent and small perennials streams for bank stabilization, water
temperature moderation, nitrogen removal and sediment (phosphorus) removal.
6. The applicant offers to include buffers around all aquatic resources as an additional avoidance
and minimization measure and states buffer enhancement includes natural or planted buffers
ranging from 30 to 100 feet. NCWRC recommends maintaining a minimum 100-foot native,
undisturbed forested buffer along each side of perennial streams and 50-foot native,
undisturbed forested buffer along each side of intermittent streams and wetlands.
7. Avoid tree clearing activities during the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 — August 15)
due to the decline of tree roosting bat species, such as the state endangered and federally
proposed endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus).
8. Construction practices that completely clear and grade the landscape are extremely harmful to
water quality, and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife resources. We recommend not clearing the
entire site, but rather maintaining the maximum amount of native vegetation and soil as possible.
We suggest having the site logged or repurposing the wood instead of burning the cleared trees.

13 March 2023 Page 3
Skyway Logistics Parkway IP
USACE Action ID: SAW-2019-00491
NCWRC Comments
9. Stringent sediment and erosion control measures should be implemented and installed prior to
any land -disturbing activity. Incorporate the following elements into erosion and sediment control
plans: minimize clearing and grading, protect waterways, phase construction for larger
construction sites (>25 acres), stabilize soils as rapidly as possible (<2 weeks), protect steep
slopes, establish appropriate perimeter controls, employ advanced settling devices, implement a
certified contractors program, and regularly inspect erosion control measures. Ensure all silt
fencing is removed once vegetation has reestablished and soils have stabilized.
10. Erosion control matting made of plastic mesh or twine should not be used within the project area
because it can injury or kill wildlife.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input for this project. If I can provide further assistance, please
call [phone] or email olivia.munzer(c-r�,ncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Sue Homewood, NCDWR
Andrew Pitner, NCDWR
Literature Cited
Alexander, R. B., R. A. Smith, and G. E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the
delivery of nitrogen to Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.
Peterson, B. J., W. M. Wollheim, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, J. L. Meyer, J. L. Tank, E. Marti, W. B.
Bowden, H. M. Valett, A. E. Hershey, W. H. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton, S.
Gregory, and D. D. Morrall. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater
streams. Science 292:86-90.
Vannote, R. L., G. W. Mineshell, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushings. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.

RECOMMENDED NATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR NON-NATIVE GRASSES IN
NORTH CAROLINA"
(Species are appropriate for all geographic regions unless otherwise indicated)
NON-NATIVE SPECIES
NATIVE SPECIES
Big bluestem
Andropogon gerardii
Little bluestem
Schizachyrium scoparium
Indiangrass
Sorghastrum nutans
Crownvetch
Switchgrass
Panicum virgatum
Centipede
Beaked panicgrass
Panicum anceps
Bermuda
Purpletop
Tridens flavus
Roundheaded bushclover
Lespedeza capitata
Deer tongue
Dicanthelium clandestinum
Sensitive partridge pea
Chamaecrista nictitans
Partridge pea
Chamaecrista asciculata
Big bluestem
Andropogon gerardii
Little bluestem
Schizachyrium scoparium
Indiangrass
Sorghastrum nutans
Switchgrass
Panicum virgatum
Kentucky bluegrass
Beaked panicgrass
Panicum anceps
Tall fescue
Purpletop
Tridens flavus
Sudangrass
Broomsedge
Andropogon virginicus
Deer tongue
Dicanthelium clandestinum
Canadian wildrye
Elymus canadensis
Virginia wildrye
Elymus virginicus
Sensitive partridge pea
Chamaecrista nictitans
Partridge pea
Chamaecrista asciculata
Switchgrass
Panicum virgatum
Splitbeard bluestem
Andropogon ternarius
Sericea lespedeza
Beggarlice
Desmodium spp.
Kobe lespedeza
Deer tongue
Dicanthelium clandestinum
Sensitive partridge pea
Chamaecrista nictitans
Partridge pea
Chamaecrista asciculata

NC Native Plant Recommendations
**A recommended revegetation/stabilization mix would ideally include a combination
of the species listed in this table. In addition, please note that additional consideration
may be needed in areas that are (highly) erodible and/or have sloped terrain. The
following species could be included in all regions for additional stabilization and
wildlife benefit:
Black-eyed susan:
Plains coreopsis:
Lance -leaved coreopsis:
Narrow -leaved sunflower:
Created October 2018
Rudbeckia hirta
Coreopsis tinctoria
Coreopsis lanceolata
Helianthus angustifolius