Updated Steele Creek Industrial PCN Application

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- 2022-00526 Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Steele Creek Industrial Warehouse Development
2. Work Type: ❑✓ Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
The property developer is planning the construction of an industrial warehouse development on the Site and is seeking verification to
use Nationwide Permit #39 to impact on -Site wetlands. The attached is an updated permit application that replaces the one that was
submitted on June 21, 2023.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Foundry Commercial
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Danielle Clark, PWS - Hart & Hickman, PC
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]: None
7. Project Location —Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
Steele Creek Road, Charlotte, NC (Lat/Long: 35.183788,-80.953031)
8. Project Location— Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B 1 a] : All or portions of 14104123,14121101 A,14121101 B, 14121102, 14121103, 14121111,
14121120,14122101,14122102,14122103,14122104,14122126, and 14121112
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Unnamed tributary of Coffey Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 03040103
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ✓❑
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 39
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
❑ Pre -Application Request
❑ Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

Via Email
August 23, 2023
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Attention: Mr. Doug Perez
Re: Updated Pre -Construction Notification
Steele Creek Industrial
Steele Creek Road
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
SAW-2022-00526
H&H Job No. FOU-009
Dear Doug:
hart
a
hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
On behalf of Foundry Commercial, Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) is submitting the attached
updated Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) for the proposed construction of an industrial
development in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Site or subject Site). A PCN
for this development was first submitted to you on June 21, 2023. Since that time, an
additional tax parcel has been added to the overall Site boundary and the Site plan has
changed with the inclusion of an additional warehouse building. Although the Site plan has
changed, the proposed wetland impacts remain the same. This updated and attached PCN
replaces the PCN submitted on June 21, 2023.
The Site is comprised of all or portions of 13 tax parcels (Mecklenburg County Parcel
Identification Numbers [PINs] 14104123, 14121101A, 1412110113, 14121102, 14121103,
14121111, 14121120, 14122101, 14122102, 14122103, 14122104, 14122126, and 14121112)
that total approximately 79 acres. H&H is submitting this PCN in order to receive verification
to use Nationwide Permit (NWP) #39 for the proposed industrial development.
2923 South Tryon Street, 5uite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4241 main

Mr. Doug Perez
August 23, 2023
Page 2
H&H conducted a stream and wetlands survey at the Site in October 2021. H&H received a
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) Charlotte Regulatory Field Office on April 11, 2022. The project was assigned
Action ID SAW-2022-00526. The PJD documentation is included as Appendix E. A new
land survey was completed during property subdivision activities, which occurred after the
PJD was issued. Following the new survey, it was determined that Wetland Area "A" and
portions of Stream Channel "A" were located off -Site.
After the additional tax parcel was added to the overall Site boundary, H&H evaluated the
new parcel (Mecklenburg County PIN 14121112) for the presence of streams and wetlands on
August 3, 2023. The new parcel is located on the top of a ridge, and is over 300 feet
upgradient of the nearest identified stream or wetland. H&H confirmed that there are no
potentially jurisdictional streams or wetlands located on the new tax parcel. H&H also
evaluated the new tax parcel for the presence of threatened and endangered (T&E) species or
their suitable habitats. During our survey, no occurrences of T&E species or their suitable
habitats were observed on the new tax parcel. H&H submitted a review request letter to the
US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) on August 11, 2023. A response from USFWS is
pending. The request letter is included in Appendix D. H&H also observed the John Douglas
House located on the new tax parcel, which is further discussed below.
There are two streams on the overall Site: Stream Channel "A" (SCA) and Stream Channel
"B" (SCB). SCA originates north of the Site and intersects the northern Site boundary before
continuing off -Site in a northeasterly direction. SCA totals approximately 85 linear feet of on -
Site stream length. SCB originates in the eastern portion of the Site when an erosional gully
reaches a headcut and forms a defined bed and bank. SCB flows in a generally north -
northeasterly direction before reaching a confluence with SCA off -Site. SCB totals
approximately 36 linear feet of on -Site stream length. Both SCA and SCB represent unnamed
tributaries of Coffey Creek.
There are two forested wetlands on the Site: Wetland Area `B" (WAB) and Wetland Area "C"
hart ► hickman
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek
Development(Wetlands/Pemitting/UpdatedPCN/02_Cover _letter.doc SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Mr. Doug Perez
August 23, 2023
Page 3
(WAC). As noted above, Wetland Area "A" (WAA) was identified in the original delineation
conducted in 2021 and the PJD issued in 2022. Following recent subdivision activities, it was
determined that WAA is located off -Site. WAB is a headwater wetland located in the eastern
portion of the Site that totals approximately 0.636 acre of on -Site area. WAC is a headwater
wetland located in the northern portion of the Site that totals approximately 0.039 acre of on -
Site area. The on -Site wetlands convey drainage towards an unnamed tributary of the Coffey
Creek located off -Site.
As noted above, the proposed wetland impacts have not changed due to the updates to the Site
plan. The developer is proposing to permanently impact approximately 0.451 acre of WAB
and approximately 0.039 acre of WAC totaling 0.49 acre of on -Site permanent wetland
impact. Impacts to WAB and WAC are proposed for grading activities to facilitate the
construction of Buildings 4 and 5. Due to the NWP #39 mitigation threshold of 0.1 acre for
wetland impacts, mitigation is proposed via the purchase of mitigation credits from the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee Program. Based on the results of
the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (WAM) for WAB and WAC, the developer
is proposing a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Therefore, the developer proposes the purchase of 0.98
wetland mitigation credits from the DMS In -Lieu Fee Program. The developer is not
proposing impacts to on -Site streams or additional permanent impacts to other on -Site
wetlands.
As you are aware, the National Register (NR) Individual Listing and NR district, the Steele
Creek Presbyterian Church (MK1377), are located in the western portion of the Site.
Additionally, the John Douglas House (MK1361) is located on the new tax parcel that has been
added to the overall Site boundary. The John Douglas House, now located in the south-central
portion of the Site, is identified as a local landmark and NR-eligible structure. The North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) letter dated February 2, 2023 indicates that
the development has the potential to adversely affect both the Steele Creek Presbyterian Church
and John Douglas House. H&H understands that you initiated formal consultation with SHPO
on or around July 31, 2023. The applicant is working with Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc.
hart ► hickman
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek
Development(Wetlands/Pemitting/UpdatedPCN/02_Cover _letter.doc SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Mr. Doug Perez
August 23, 2023
Page 4
(RGA) to address SHPO requirements, which may include a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) executed between the SHPO, Corps, and developer.
H&H is seeking a Nationwide Permit #39 verification for this development. A copy of the
updated PCN submittal package has also been submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) via email.
Should you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Dan
McCauley at 704-998-1864.
Very truly yours,
Hart & Hickman, PC
Matt Bramblett, PE
Principal
Danielle Clark, PWS
Sr. Project Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Dan McCauley, PWS
Sr. Project Environmental Scientist
• PCN Form
• Figure 1 — Site Location Map
• Figure 2 — Preliminary Wetland Delineation Map
• Appendix A — Agent Authorization
• Appendix B — Wetland Impact Exhibit Prepared by Oak Engineering
• Appendix C — Avoidance & Minimization
• Appendix D — Supplemental Documents
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek
Development(Wetlands/Pemitting/Updated PCN/02_Cover _letter.doc
hart ` hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Mr. Doug Perez
August 23, 2023
Page 5
• Appendix E — Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
• Appendix F — Mitigation Acceptance Letter
• Appendix G — North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (WAM) Forms
• Appendix H — DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Email
cc: Mr. Andrew Pitner. NC DEQ DWR (via email)
Mr. Michael Cain, Foundry Commercial (via email)
Mr. Greg Welsh, Oak Engineering (via email)
Ms. Ellen Turco, RGA (via email)
Ms. Debbie Bevin, RGA (via email)
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek
Development(Wetlands/Pemitting/Updated PCN/02_Cover _letter.doc
hart ► hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Updated Pre -Construction Notification
Proposed Steele Creek Industrial
Warehouse Development
SAW-2022-00526
Steele Creek Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. FOU-009
August 23, 2023
hart -4 hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4241 main

❑�6� W A rE�%
O � Y
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
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
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.
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 g.
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:
Steele Creek Industrial Warehouse Development
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
City of Charlotte c/o Real Estate Division
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
03711-464, 33517-988, 33333-400, 33333-362, 33333-344, 24270-484, 04704-529, 04895-197
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d.
Street address:
600 East 4th Street
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
TCA - Christie Lane LLC
37025-637
440 S. Church Street, Suite 800
Charlotte, NC 28202
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: Property Developer
4b.
Name:
Michael Cain
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Foundry Commercial
4d.
Street address:
2151 Hawkins Street, Suite 100
4e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28203
4f.
Telephone no.:
704-497-2764
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Dan McCauley, PWS
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Hart & Hickman, PC
5c.
Street address:
3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Suite 301
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27607
5e.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
5f.
Fax no.:
[phone]
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
All of portions of 14104123, 14121101A, 14121101B, 14121102, 14121103, 14121111,
1 a. Property Identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 14121120, 14122101, 14122102, 14122103, 14122104, 14122126, and 14121112
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.183788 Longitude:-80.953031
1 c. Property size:
79 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Unnamed tributaries of Coffey Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C (Coffey Creek classification)
2c. River basin:
Catawba
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 consists of all or portions of 13 parcels of land located at 7401 7601, and 7611 Steele Creek Road, 7512, 7540, 8514, 8506 McAlpine Drive,
and 7601 Christie Lane in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site consists primarily of forested land with a church and associated
structures in the southwestern portion, a residence in the south-central, and cleared land in the southeastern portion of the Site.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.675
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 121
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The developer plans to build an industrial warehouse development to serve the City of Charlotte and the surrounding areas.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The planned development area will be graded with heavy equipment to prepare level building pads. A stormwater BMP is included.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: PJD issued on 4/11/2022
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Julia McGuire
Agency/Consultant Company: Hart & Hickman, PC
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A PJD was issued by Mr. Scott Jones on 4/11/2022 (SAW-2022-00526).
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):
❑X Wetlands ❑ 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 P
Grading/Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.039
W2 P
Grading/Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.451
W3 T
Grading/Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.03
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:
0.52
2h. Comments:
The permanent wetland impacts involve fill and grading required to facilitate the construction of Building 5 and Building 4. Temporary wetland impacts
are required for constructing and stabilizing the fill slope north of Building 5.
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 -
Choose one
S2 -
Choose one
S3 -
Choose one
S4 -
Choose one
S5 -
Choose one
S6 -
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Not applicable
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
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: Not Applicable
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:
Not Applicable
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)
B 1
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Not Applicable
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Appendix C
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Appendix C
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?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑X Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑X 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.
❑X Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
0 linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
0 square feet
4e. Ri arian wetland miti ation re uested:
p g q
0.98 acres DM8 approval letter reflects impact acreage and not
proposed mitigation quantity.
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h.
Comments: Wetlands with proposed impacts have WAM ratings of low and high, thus the applicant proposes a 2:1 ratio for 0.49 acre of impact.
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.
Not applicable
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 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).
Not applicable.
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?
52.6 %
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:
Due
to the proximity to the airport, the project is required to meet FAA guidelines on residence times. Therefore
a large sand filter will be used for
water
quality and quantity control. The stormwater management system is designed to meet or exceed City
of Charlotte and NC Department of
Natural Resources rules and regualtions.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Charlotte
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Yes
❑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):
❑X 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?
❑X Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑X 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 ❑X 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)?
1 c.
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 ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ❑X 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 ❑X 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.
The proposed Site plan will develop the majority of the Site and additional development is not anticipated. Additional phases and/or impacts to Waters
of the U.S. are not planned or 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
will enter City of Charlotte sanitary sewer infrastructure and will be piped to an off -site City of Charlotte wastewater treatment plant.
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 0 No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
0 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?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on-line databases, and on -Site reconnaissance (See information
in Appendix D).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes 0 No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
TBD - see 7b. below
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑ 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?
H&H reviewed the National Registry of Historic Places, NC State Historic Preservation Office databases, and conducted on -Site reconnaissance. In a letter dated February 2,
2023, NC SPHO expressed concerns with potential adverse effects to the Steele Creek Presbyterian Church (MK1377) and John Douglas House (MK1361). See additional
information On Appendix C and Appendix D
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?
Reviewed FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ID #3710451200K
Dan McCauley
110-
08-22-2023
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.
Page 10 of 10

" - '. • .�-•RORD. � 1.1E ��' • � .�< ! t` c r ���`r
'` 4`• SITE
.�. :• ,,_ it ! J'Y!=-4:��r'/i- 0 '-1Y _ �r���� ��5
L- !.fr_ 1 � � ],1` �\.1 1\t - ,. \��' •. Y `-~i -1 Ir 4 ti,�r_ � •{. :� '� -\
��- •��� `.�,� �� �. r���,�-- ���t � � . �r r�\-, ,lit `�� f� ''
�`�� � ��%-- „ !' �' . a:' 1. � 'it1•, `�--� ��
"nal G ``graphic Societyu
TITLE
0 2,000 4,000 SITE LOCATION MAP
L SCALE IN FEET PROJECT
- STEELE CREEK INDUSTRIAL
E STEELE CREEK ROAD
a CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP ■ 2923South Tryon Street - Suite 100
h i c k m a n Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 hart
CHARLOTTE WEST, NORTH CAROLINA 2021 2o4-sa6-0002 (p) 704s86-0323 (fl
SMART€R ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
QUADRANGLE DATE: 8/22/2023 REVISION NO: 0
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
JOB NO: FOU-009 FIGURE NO: 1

Appendix A
Agent Authorization
14
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Michael Cain
Agent Certification of Authorization
, representing the prospective developer of the property located at
7407 Steele Creek Road which is represented by Parcel ID Numbers 14121111, 14104123,
14121102, 14121103, 14121120, 14122104, 14122103, 14122101, and 14122102, and portions of
the larger parent parcels represented by Parcel ID Numbers 14122126 and 14121 101 B in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (approx. 80 acres), certify that 1 have authorized
Hart & Hickman, PC to act on the prospective developer's behalf and take all actions necessary to
the processing, issuance, and acceptance of a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and
401/404 permitting for this property.
S.-C
Prospective Appl nt's Signature
Name/Title: Michael Cain, Project Manager
Company: Foundry Commercial
1119122
Date
Agent's Signature
Danielle Clark, P W S
Hart & Hickman, PC
1-11-2022
Date

Appendix B
Wetland Impact Exhibit Prepared by Oak Engineering
14
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

L7 �
j VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 = 2,500'
rU�titi ZO
tik��
1
gym°°o
o n,
�FtFt,
,
w =ti
a
�� rn
moo°
ti
,AVM 40 1HOW onand .09
3N` I
sv:)-s04
-------------
---- �\
ti o�
,
S SS ---------
—
N
,0" m0�
°j
\
— 0#0 /
A x
�a
AQaN L�
N�
j
T
_\
i
—�--
o
�h
Z
_ v ,
O
p
son"
cb
�AdM
T
j—
OMSI�21�VW
d O� I
\
_
I
o
s
I
o
'°
jc�
o
�1Z A
I
wC,. V1 O
�\ Q 1111
?
�l
�j;
--
��
I
—
\
\
I
a
o
ss
X
\
y�r
Doti
T_—
I
\
wk°
�7
°<
QI
o m
�ti
o��
V
0,
- ...
zo 0;17!
�yM
a 0
,os
nOd
I
I
I
_. -
�SS
\S
S
S
s
\
s
s\
I \s
s
- - ss
\s
s
\
\S
S
ss
\S
STREAM CHANNEL 'A'
\(1.917 LF)
Z
Lu
w
V
z
W
a
N �
W
M �
Z�
u.i w
z
Z
W
,n& V °�
V � �
¢Z v
O J
il:0 O
0Q
0
0, Z
CV
U
It
PE SEAL:
CAR
*':t
ESS/SEAL
O45345
•
G • �;cA G I NEAR' Gj �
06/05/2023
(T
100 0 100
kmtjmmm�
SCALE: 1 " = 100'
-297000-sF \= — UNDERDRAIN DETAL
TYPICAL IRON PIN \s NOT TO SCALE
PROPERTY CORNER S
N� v. \ �^— \\\ Lu
l�hfl ��I����� 111illlll I �x S
-- _ j\ \ i S IMPACT AREA 1A: W
-- y PROPERTY LINE FOLLOWS \��\� j,��� �PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT FILL
- ( )
—\ THE TOP OF BANK
----,�s� \ j\j jjjjjj j\\ III �, 19,660 SF (0.451 ACRES)
— � 8 - - i � '�II'i' ICI I�' �
,
S W
CN
co
gas
75 0
-
69B __ _ SOS __ �� _ ",/. %" i, �I \j\\\ ` / B•
� ,,,, , jj j 1 \SS
o
IMPACT AREA 1 W
c�
- z _ A ,A „ �. — S TEMPORARY
ss ss - ^ys- WETLAND ARE MPORARY WETLAND IMPACT FOR o a Q LLI
0
CONSTRUCTING AND STABILIZING THE ? —
j (0.019 ACRES)
EBB
\ V
� PRIVATE DRIVE � '
FILL SLOPE 10' FROM TOE OF SLOPE W Lu O W
= j V
1, 304 SF 0.030 ACRES � Q
.5
,->�ss--
W
/N
F
r st j i s _ _ _ _ ss _ O 1 J
evv
Lu
w—
TRACT 1 O LL
AREA: -
^ a ^ b \
c _ A 3,298,463t SQ. FT.
-�_
j m � b,� � �� 75J22±ACRES
I ,
Lu
4, h ^ s
z
1 — :
Z 1 �!\� - __! 5 - STREAM CHANNEL B(ej�
o j `` (36 LF ONSI TE)
M
I ryl,
7 i I \ ryry
i h i
O( seov
O
�
h 1
i
j„01 WETLAND AREA
^
(0636 ACRES)
co
Al
j 1 ^ INSTALL 308 LF OF 6-INCH ; ��
UNDERDRAIN WRAPPED IN FILTER
i
(D
ING FABRIC AND EMBEDDED /N STONE
S PER DETAIL THIS SHEET. INSTALL
8'
� j b — 299
AREA: X�X / �� % "SDO_S�c IN NATURAL FLOW CHANNEL AND
x 3,298,46±ACR FT �X _ DA PLIGHT AT TOE OF FILL SLOPE.
75J22+ACRES �x _ -
^
S o0
ti
z V
Lu
mho Cie
� b �,1
� a
CL
x
a j
1
IV ' •7 Y I � y� is / � 5__
Ao
0dg1i8nd 09
j0
0------- AMS AKEEPf/WI AE EGMIDALC
n (278A SaFrVUM AC/S)
o y v \ \ \ \ \ -3-zb �a 3
zi
I �tcb
oti
Cb
gp
Z
I I W
I I
I
I
m�o
Jw N
"' 1 0
wmm w
/ 0 se V N X
w
Z0w ; W N
w 0 _
/ V

Appendix C
Avoidance and Minimization
14
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Appendix C
Avoidance and Minimization
Steele Creek Industrial Warehouse Development
Steele Creek Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. FOU-009
AvnitinnrP
The proposed development is located at 7401 7601, and 7611 Steele Creek Road; 7512, 7540,
8514, 8506 McAlpine Drive; and 7601 Christie Lane in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. The Site consists of all or portions of 13 parcels (Mecklenburg County Parcel Numbers
[PINs] 14104123, 14121101A, 14121101B, 14121102, 14121103, 14121111, 14121120,
14122101, 14122102, 14122103, 14122104, 14122126, and 14121112) that total approximately
79 acres.
In December 2022, H&H reviewed the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) for Sites
located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (NC SHPO) GIS viewer; and the Site and surrounding area via visual reconnaissance for
the potential presence of historic, cultural, and/or archeological sites. Based upon a review of the
NC SHPO GIS viewer, H&H identified the Steele Creek Presbyterian Church (MK1377) as a
National Register (NR) Individual Listing and as a NR district in the western portion of the Site.
The Steele Creek Presbyterian Church is also identified as a local landmark. In addition, a house
(MK4109) is identified in the southwestern portion of the Site as a "surveyed only" structure, and
the John Douglas House (MK1361) is identified in the south-central portion of the Site as a local
landmark and NR-eligible structure. According to historic aerials of the Site, the "surveyed only"
residence (MK4109) appears to have been demolished between February and April 2021.
A request for comment letter was submitted to the NC SHPO in December 2022. In a letter dated
February 2, 2023, NC SHPO expressed concerns with potential adverse effects to the Steele Creek
Presbyterian Church and the John Douglas House described above. The NC SHPO letter is
included in Appendix D. In order to address SHPO's comments, Foundry Commercial contracted
with Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc. (RGA) to complete archaeological and historic
preservation consulting services on the Site.
1
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MmtfFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek hart 0_ h is km a n
Development/Wetlands/Permitting/Updated PCN/09_C - Avoid and Minimme.docx .
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Due to the apparent historical significance of the on -Site church structure, the developer is
proposing to avoid impacting, removing, or relocating the church. In addition, open space will be
preserved in all directions adjacent to the church. Development of the industrial warehouse
buildings are limited to the north, east, and south of the church to maintain visibility of the front
of the church from Steele Creek Road located west of the church. Additionally, the removal of
old growth trees located in the open space west of the church will be avoided to the extent
practicable. Although the John Douglas House is listed as a local landmark and NR-eligible
structure, the house is in severe disrepair and poor condition. The developer is currently proposing
to demolish the John Douglas House via a Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). However, prior to doing so, the
developer is working with RGA to address SHPO's requirements, which may include a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed between the SHPO, Corps, and developer.
H&H reviewed databases for State- and federally -listed threatened and endangered species (T&E)
which could potentially occur on or near the Site. H&H also conducted a screening survey of the
Site and surrounding area in October 2021 and August 2023 for federally -listed T&E species. No
federally -listed T&E species nor their suitable habitat was identified. H&H requested comment
from US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) in
December 2021. In a letter dated March 11, 2022, the FWS determined the Site may contain
suitable habitat for the northern long -earned bat, Schweinitz's sunflower, and Michaux's sumac.
However, the FWS concluded that the planned development, "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect" these species. Suitable habitat was not identified for other T&E species. Agency responses
are included in Appendix D. After the new tax parcel was added to the overall Site boundary,
H&H requested comment from US FWS and NC WRC on August 11, 2023. The request letter is
included in Appendix D; however, responses from US FWS And NC WRC are pending.
In regard to Site alternatives, the property developer has considered and evaluated other potential
properties in the area of the proposed industrial development. However, properties or property
assemblages of this size are difficult to find and purchase along the frontage of major roadways
and within such close proximity to major interstates. The proposed buildings and associated
roadways have been designed to primarily occupy upland areas to avoid on -Site Waters of the US
2
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MmtfFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek hart 0_ h is km a n
Development/Wetlands/Permitting/Updated PCN/09_C - Avoid and Minimme.docx .
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, all streams are completely avoided by the
development plans.
In order to prevent dewatering of the remaining portion of Wetland Area `B" and other Waters of
the U.S. located downgradient of the Site, the developer is proposing the installation of a filtered
underdrain north of the proposed Building 5. The filtered underdrain system will extend to the
unimpacted portion of Wetland Area "B" to maintain flow through the Site.
A previously designed Concept Site Plan prepared by Oak Engineering dated July 2022 indicates
that the developer originally proposed a significantly larger area of disturbance, which included
additional parking areas, roadways, and BMPs. The developer purchased an additional parcel to
facilitate the construction of a desired sixth building. During due diligence activities, H&H
confirmed that the new parcel consists of all upland area. Although the developer is now proposing
to construct an additional warehouse building as part of the development, the wetland impacts have
not changed from the previous application where five buildings were proposed. In addition,
infrastructure has been shifted and utility connections have been realigned to further avoid grading
in Waters of the U.S. Multi -tenant industrial buildings have certain industry standard requirements
for buildings that consist of specific building and parking dimensions. The Wetland Impact
Exhibit prepared by Oak Engineering is included in Appendix B.
Minimization
To minimize Site impacts, the proposed Site plan was designed to avoid Waters of the US to the
maximum extent practicable. The Site buildings, parking areas, roadways, utilities, and
stormwater management areas have been designed to primarily occupy upland areas. Furthermore,
no impacts are proposed to on -Site stream channels. Fill slopes for Buildings 4 and 5 result in
impacts to WAB and WAC. The on -Site parking areas have been designed to meet Site -specific
needs and zoning requirements.
A detention pond is proposed for stormwater control. The detention pond has been designed to
occupy an exclusively upland area in the northern portion of the Site. An outlet control structure
in the downgradient side of the pond and a riprap apron downgradient of the detention outlet pipe
3
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MmtfFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek hart 0_ h is km a n
Development/Wetlands/Permitting/Updated PCN/09_C - Avoid and Minimme.docx .
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

are proposed to reduce high velocity stormwater runoff before discharging into the on -Site wetland
and stream systems.
During Site development, good erosion and sediment control practices will be followed. Extensive
silt fencing will be used on the construction Site perimeter, along potentially affected wetland
boundaries, and along stream channels.
Mitigation -
Mitigation is typically required by NWP #39 for impacts greater than 0.1 acre of wetlands and
0.02 acre of stream. Due to the proposed impacts to 0.49 acre of on -Site wetlands, compensatory
mitigation is proposed in the form of purchasing wetland mitigation credits from the North
Carolina DMS In -Lieu Fee Program. The mitigation acceptance letter is included in Appendix F.
The North Carolina WAM was conducted on WAB and WAC. The WAM forms are included as
Appendix G. Based on the results of the WAM, the quality of WAB is low and WAC is high.
Because the wetlands appear to be of either low or high quality, a mitigation ratio of 2:1 is
proposed. At a 2:1 mitigation ratio, 0.98 acre of mitigation is proposed for impacts to wetlands
via the purchase of credits from the In -Lieu Fee Program.
0
https://harthick.shmepoint.com/sites/MmtfFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundry Commercial - FOU/FOU-009 Steele Creek hart 0_ h is km a n
Development/Wetlands/Permitting/Updated PCN/09_C - Avoid and Minimme.docx .
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Appendix D
Supplemental Documents
14
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

ua
United States Department of the InteriorSERVIUE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa StreetFl
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 11, 2022
Danielle Clark
Hart & Hickman
3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Suite 301
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
dclark&harthickman. com
Subject: Steele Creek Road Undisclosed Development; Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Danielle Clark:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated December 16, 2021, (received by email February 11, 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
A description of the proposed action, project design plans, and a description of impacts to onsite
habitats have not been prepared or provided to our office at this time. According to the
information provided, the Applicant proposes to construct an undisclosed development on
approximately 74 partially forested acres in Charlotte, North Carolina. The information provided
suggests that the proposed project may require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to impact Waters of the United States and would not require federal funding.
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 project proponents to avoid
clearing of suitable roost trees during this animal's active season (April 15 — October 15),
maternity roosting season (May 15 — August 15) and especially during the pup season (June 1 —
July 31). Tree clearing moratoria may also support our concurrence with a "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" determination from the action agency. If clearing of suitable roost

trees is not proposed, we would not object to a "no effect" determination from the action agency
for this species.
Your correspondence indicates that targeted botanical surveys for the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) were
conducted during the appropriate timeframe (October 18, 2021) and did not detect evidence for
these species at that time. Based on the information provided, we believe that the probability for
inadvertent loss of these plant species is insignificant and discountable and we would concur
with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination from the action agency.
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. In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the
appropriate federal action agency or its designated representative to review its activities or
programs and to identify any such activities or programs that may affect endangered or
threatened species or their habitats. If it is determined that the proposed activity may adversely
affect any species federally listed as endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this
office must be initiated. Our concurrence with "no effect" determinations from action agencies is
not required.
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.
2

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 4-2-22-486.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
3

Q North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
13 March 2022
Ms. Danielle Clark
Hart & Hickman PC
2923 South Tyron Street, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Request for Environmental Review
7401 Steele Creek Road
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Clark,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your email on 11
February 2022. Biologists with NCWRC have reviewed the subject information. Comments are provided
in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) is requesting information on the potential impacts to threatened and
endangered species and critical habitats at or near the proposed development project to be located at 7401
Steele Creek Road in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The 74-acre site consists of
forested land in the eastern and central portion of the site, and a church, associated daycare, and residence
in the west -central portion of the site.
Unnamed tributaries of Coffey Creek occur at the site. Coffey Creek is in the Catawba River basin and is
classified as a Class C stream by the NC Division of Water Resources. We have no known current records
of federal or state rare, threatened, or endangered species within or adjacent to the site. H&H surveyed the
site for federally protected species and their suitable habitat on 18 October 2021, and no individuals or
their habitat were observed during the field survey.
We offer the following preliminary recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife resources.
1. We recommend the proposed development avoid impacting the wetlands and streams.
2. Maintain a minimum 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a
minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed,
forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources, water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
13 March 2022
7401 Steele Creek Dev.
Mecklenburg County
Also, wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and for treatment
of pollutants associated with urban stormwater.
3. We recommend not clearing the entire site, but rather maintaining the maximum amount of native
vegetation as possible.
4. Since kudzu is prevalent at a portion of the site, manage non-native, invasive species by
pretreating the project site prior to construction and preventing spread during construction.
5. Disturbed areas should be re -seeded with native seed mixtures. Avoid fescue -based mixtures and
lespedeza because fescue is invasive and/or non-native. Native, annual small grains appropriate
for the season are preferred and recommended. Consider planting native, wildflower seed mixes
and plants that will create pollinator habitat within the site. Avoid using invasive, non-native
plants in seed mixtures or landscaping plants
(hqp://www.ncwildflower.org//plant galleries/invasives_list).
6. We recommend using green construction techniques to improve water, waste, and energy
efficiency, such as environmental -friendly building techniques, construction waste management,
and energy efficient building materials.
7. Use non-invasive native species and Low Impact Development (LID) technology in landscaping.
Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic
regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. LID techniques include
bioretention areas that can collect stormwater from driveways and parking areas. Additional
alternatives include narrower roads and swales versus curbs/gutters. Compared to conventional
developments, implementing appropriate LID techniques can be more cost-effective, increase
property values, provide space -saving advantages, reduce runoff, and protect water quality
(hgps://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/roseen-et-al-2011-forging-the-link/). Also, additional
information on LID can be found at the NC State University LID guide:
httn://www.onsiteconsortium.ore/nDsdeal/NC LID Guidebook.ndf.
NCWRC's Green Growth Toolbox provides information on nature -friendly planning
(hqp://www.ncwildlife.org/Conserving/g Programs/GreenGrowthToolbox.aspx).
Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land -disturbing activity.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting
that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
At this time, the information provided is not sufficient for our staff to make definitive recommendations
or conclusions concerning this project. If I can be of additional assistance, please call [phone] or
email olivia.munzer&ncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
February 2, 2023
Danielle Clark
Hart & Hickman
3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Suite 301
Raleigh, NC 27607
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
dclarkkhathickman. com
Re: Construct five industrial warehouse buildings, McApline Drive, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
ER 23-0058
Dear Ms. Clark:
Thank you for your email of December 21, 2022, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submission and offer the following comments. We also offer our apology for the delayed
response due to an overwhelming influx of review requests at the end of 2022 and a shortage of staff to
handle them.
The proposed industrial development has the potential to adversely affect both the National Register -listed
Steele Creek Presbyterian Church (MK1377) as well as the National Register -eligible John Douglas House
(MK1361). A determination of adverse effect may impact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting
process. We recommend that you reach out to USACE as soon as possible so that they may begin their
consultation with our office. A final determination will be made once we have received the information
listed below and have consulted with USACE about permit impact areas.
• What is the height of the proposed buildings? Designs/drawings must be provided; a rendering
would be helpful but is not required.
• What planting scheme is planned for the areas between the church and new construction?
• What trees will remain within the boundaries of the NR property? Provide a site map that indicates
which will stay.
• What is the proposed future use of the church property?
• Both properties are also locally designated landmarks and may require a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Historic Landmark Commission before any work
may take place. Have you consulted with the Commission?
There is one previously recorded archaeological site (31MK1164) within the proposed project area. The
site was recorded in 2020 as part of a survey by Legacy Research Associates, and Environmental Services,
Inc., who served as Legacy's subconsultant for that project. The survey was conducted for proposed borrow
area construction associated with Charlotte -Douglas International Airport. Site 31MK1164 has not been
assessed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), but the archaeological
investigations conducted on the site indicate a low research potential, and no further work was
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

ER 23-0058, February 02, Page 2 of 3
recommended. Much of the eastern and northeastern portions of the project area were archaeologically
surveyed as part of those 2020 investigations.
The proposed industrial development overlaps with a portion of the NRHP boundary for the Steele
Creek Presbyterian Church and Cemetery (MK1377). We recommend that the northern boundary of
the cemetery be surveyed with Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to delineate the cemetery and
ensure the proposed development will not impact any burials, including unmarked burials,
associated with the cemetery.
According to Kenneth W. Robinson's 2007 report, Archaeological Investigation of a Possible
Cemetery and Documentation of Other Sites Charlotte Douglas International Airport Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, information from local researchers indicates that there may
be an enslaved community cemetery in the vicinity of the project area, south of Byrum Drive and
east of Steele Creek Road. Archaeological investigations have not yet identified the cemetery
location. Based on this information, and the general potential for burials of enslaved individuals to
be located outside of walled portion of the Steele Creek Presbyterian Church Cemetery, we
recommend that the portion of the project area surrounding the church and cemetery that has not yet
been subject to archaeological survey, be investigated with intensive pedestrian reconnaissance to
look for evidence of unmarked burials (e.g., linear depressions, fieldstones, ornamental vegetation,
etc.,). This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of
the Interior Professional Qualifications. A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or
expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at
h!tps:Harchaeology.ncdcr. goy/pro grams/environmental-review/archaeological-consultant-list.
Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field
investigation. One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as
well as a digital copy (PDF) of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be
forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) through this office for review and comment as
soon as they are available and in advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities.
OSA's Archaeological Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies,
Technical Reports, and Curation can be found online at: https:Harchaeolog_y.ncdcr.gov/osa-
guidelines.
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,
��
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
{j 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

ER 23-0058, February 02, Page 3 of 3
cc:
Stewart Gray, Charlotte -Mecklenburg HLC
Bryan, Roden -Reynolds, USACE
Julie Smith, NCHPO
Brett Sturm, NCHPO
Tommy Dupree, FAA
stewart.graykmecklenbur- cam. nc. - ov
bryan.k.roden-reynolds(&,,usace. gM.mil
j ulie. smith(kncdcr. gov
brett. sturm(d),ncdcr. gov
tommy.dupree(kfaa.gov
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

Via E-mail
August 11, 2023
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Attention: Ms. Rebekah Reid
Re: Request for Information and Comment
Residential Property
7601 Christie Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. FOU-014
Dear Rebekah,
hart ' 4
a
hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) is requesting information concerning protected species and habitats
on or near the above -referenced property (hereafter referred to as the "Site"). This request is
submitted to satisfy property due diligence actions for land redevelopment, which could involve
wetlands permitting. The anticipated redevelopment actions will not involve the use of federal
funds.
The Site consists of residential use land located at 7601 Christie Lane in Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The Site consists of 5.03 acres of land containing a house
built in the late 1800s, one dilapidated log cabin, and one barn. The remaining portions of the Site
consist primarily of forested land with cleared and maintained areas adjacent to the house and
driveway.
The subject Site is located in a primarily undeveloped and residential area in close proximity to
Steele Creek Road. Adjacent properties currently consist of undeveloped land to the north and
east; single-family residences to the south; and a church and recreational area to the west. A Site
location map is provided as Figure 1 and representative photographs are attached.
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www,harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4241 main

Ms. Rebekah Reid
August 11, 2023
Page 2
In order to investigate the potential presence of protected flora and fauna on the Site, H&H
completed the following activities:
• contacted the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) by a similar
letter;
• utilized the US Fish & Wildlife Service (US FWS) Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) tool to generate and review a Site -specific list of federally -listed
threatened and endangered (T&E) species potentially present on the Site
(https://ilac.ecosphere.fws. goy);
• reviewed the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) online database for
records of federally -listed T&E species occurrences for Mecklenburg County on the NHP
website (https://www.ncnhp.or-/dg ata/species-community-search);
• utilized the NHP online Data Explorer tool to create a Project Review report for the
subject Site;
• reviewed the Federal Registry and the US FWS Critical Habitat for T&E Species online
mapping tool on the US FWS website (http://crithab.fws.gov); and
• conducted an on -Site visual survey in order to field screen the Site and peripheral areas
for federally -protected species and/or their habitats.
AT(- XX7T? r
H&H requested comment on the potential presence of protected flora and fauna on the Site from
the NC WRC by a similar letter. A response from NC WRC is pending.
Federally -Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
H&H utilized the US FWS IPaC tool to generate a Site -specific list of federally -listed T&E species
potentially present on the Site, which included the following protected species:
• Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) — Endangered
• Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) — Endangered
• Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) — Threatened
hart hickman
https://harthick.shwepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundiy Commercial -
FOU/FOU-014 Stallings Property/Phase I ESA/Agency Letters/USFWS Letter - 7601 Christie Lane.docx SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOWTIONS

Ms. Rebekah Reid
August 11, 2023
Page 3
The Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) are also
included as a candidate species and a proposed endangered species on the IPaC report,
respectively, but are not yet federally protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
IPaC report indicates that there are no critical habitats located on the subject Site. The IPaC report
is attached to this letter.
H&H also reviewed the North Carolina NHP online database for records of federally -listed T&E
species potentially located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The NHP list includes the
previously mentioned Michaux's sumac, Schweinitz's sunflower, and Smooth coneflower. The
NHP list also includes the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) as an endangered species
along with the Rusty -patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) as an endangered species that
historically occurred in Mecklenburg County. Georiga aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) is also
included as a candidate species under the ESA on the NHP list along with the Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which are federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA).
H&H also utilized the NHP online Data Explorer tool to create a Project Review report for the
subject Site. The Project Review report indicates that there are no records of rare species,
important natural communities, natural areas, or elemental occurrences of federally -listed T&E
species identified on the subject Site or within one mile of the Site. The report indicates that an
open space managed by the City of Charlotte is located on the Site. There are multiple managed
areas located within one mile of the Site including City of Charlotte managed open space, multiple
open spaces managed by Mecklenburg County, and a NC Division of Mitigation Services
Easement. The Project Review report is attached to this letter.
Critical Habitats
H&H completed a review of Federal Registry information pertaining to federally -designated
critical habitats for the T&E species listed above on the US FWS critical habitats online mapping
tool. There are no federally -designated critical habitats located on the Site or in the area
surrounding the Site.
hart hickman
https://harthick.shwepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundiy Commercial -
FOU/FOU-014 Stallings Property/Phase I ESA/Agency Letters/USFWS Letter - 7601 Christie Lane.docx SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOWTIONS

Ms. Rebekah Reid
August 11, 2023
Page 4
Visual Survey
On August 3, 2023, H&H conducted a visual survey of the Site to observe for individuals or stands
of T&E species and areas of potential habitat that would support federally -protected species known
or believed to occur in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina as listed above.
H&H did not observe evidence of Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), or their habitats on the
subject Site. Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower occur in areas of full to partial sun and
are often associated with periodic habitat disturbance, such as land clearing, fires, or grazing.
Smooth coneflower occurs in open wooded areas with abundant sunlight and is often associated
with areas of periodic disturbance to reduce the amount of competition in the herbaceous layer.
H&H evaluated the Site and did not identify occurrences of these species, or their habitats, during
the visual survey. As noted above, the Site primarily consists of forested land with cleared,
maintained areas adjacent to the house and driveway area. The forested areas contain a thick
canopy, lack periodic habitat disturbance, and have areas that are dominated by an understory of
invasive English ivy (Hedera helix). The cleared areas adjacent to the residence and driveway
appear to be subject to regular mechanical and/or chemical vegetation management, and contain
primarily grass species and American burnweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius). Other cleared areas
near the driveway in the southwestern portion of the Site are also dominated by grass species,
Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) and Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) saplings. No individuals of the
Rhus, Helianthus, or Echinacea genera were observed. Based on the above information, the Site
does not appear to contain suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac, Schweinitz's sunflower, or
Smooth coneflower. Due to the lack of observed occurrences of these species and the lack of
suitable habitat on the Site, H&H has determined that the potential for Michaux's sumac,
Schweinitz's sunflower, and Smooth coneflower to be present at the Site is low.
H&H did not observe evidence of the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) or its habitat on
the subject Site. The Site does not contain streams or other bodies of water which could support
hart hickman
https://harthick.shwepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundiy Commercial -
FOU/FOU-014 Stallings Property/Phase I ESA/Agency Letters/USFWS Letter - 7601 Christie Lane.docx SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOWTIONS

Ms. Rebekah Reid
August 11, 2023
Page 5
the Carolina heelsplitter. Therefore, H&H has determined that the potential for the Carolina
heelsplitter to be present at the project Site is low.
During the survey, H&H did not observe evidence of federally -protected species or their suitable
habitat on the Site.
Please review the above information and provide a written response as to the potential for this
project to affect protected species. If possible, please respond to this request within 30 days.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Hart and Hickman, PC
Danielle Clark, PWS
Senior Project Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Julia McGuire
Assistant Project Environmental Scientist
https://harthick.shwepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Foundiy Commercial -
FOU/FOU-014 Stallings Property/Phase I ESA/Agency Letters/USFWS Letter - 7601 Christie Lane.docx
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL. SOWTIONS

L
I�I �
TI
fa'a':rr,'an�c:-rrk
,3 I�
� w
e Q
u
r N SITE
4
O
❑ � Y
� G
w
RIiiC ✓-j L.i lT
.. Leamn Lake
MARKyLV UAL' RTi
Shopton
m
r3
•
r
Pyl'itj F
i
�^YYal1 7,ake -�
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National ;Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures`Dataset, and
National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census
Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S.
Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National
Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data
refreshed April, 2023.
- TITLE
0 2,000 4,000 SITE LOCATION MAP
j SCALE IN FEET PROJECT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
7601 CHRISTIE LANE
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
2923 South Tryon Street - Suite 100
CHARLOTTE WEST, hart �+ hickman Charlotte, North Carolina28203
- NORTH CAROLINA 2022 704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (t)
SMARTER @NV[RONWNTAL SOLUTIONS License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
E
QUADRANGLE DATE: 8/4/2023 REVISION NO: 0
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) JOB NO: FOU-014 FIGURE NO: 1

v
0
0
LL
Photograph 1: General view of forested land in eastern portion of the Site with English ivy and microstegium overgrowth
Photograph 2: General view of forested land in western portion of the Site
2923 S. Tryon Street, Suite 100 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
hart '""�• hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 7601 CHRISTIE LANE
704.586.0007(p) 704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

v
0
0
LL
Photograph 3: General view of cleared area near the residence in central portion of the Site
Photograph 4: General view of cleared area near the driveway in southwestern portion of the Site
2923 S. Tryon Street, Suite 100 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
hart hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 7601 CHRISTIE LANE
704.586.0007(p) 704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

v
0
0
+; p
Photograph 5: General view of cleared area near the driveway in southwestern portion of the Site
6;
L 1
Photograph 6: General view of cleared area near the residence in central portion of the Site
-4 2923 S. Tryon Street, Suite 100 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
hart "SW hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 7601 CHRISTIE LANE
704.586.0007(p) 704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

v
0
0
LL
Photograph 9: General view of cleared area near the driveway in southwestern portion of the Site
Photograph 10: General view of forested area in north -central portion of the Site with the barn in the background
2923 S. Tryon Street, Suite 100 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
hart hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 7601 CHRISTIE LANE
704.586.0007(p) 704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

i�c
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
03�/ Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0112319
Project Name: Stallings Property
August 02, 2023
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The enclosed species list
fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Please note that new species information can change your official species list. Under 50 CFR
402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list
should be verified after 90 days. The Service recommends you visit the ECOS-IPaC website at
regular intervals during project planning and implementation to ensure your species list is
accurate or obtain an updated species list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A biological assessment (BA) or biological evaluation (BE) should be completed for your
project. A BA is required for major construction activities (or other undertakings having similar
physical impacts) considered to be Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c))
(NEPA). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a BE be
prepared to determine effects of the action and whether those effects may affect listed species
and/or designated critical habitat. E?ects of the action are all consequences to listed species or
critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other

08/02/2023
activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action
if it is reasonably certain to occur and would not occur "but for" the proposed action..
Recommended contents of a BABE are described at 50 CFR 402.12. More information and
resources about project review and preparing a BA/BE can be found at the following web link:
https://www.fws. gov/office/asheville-ecological-services/asheville-field-office-online-review-
process-overview.
If a Federal agency determines listed species and/or designated critical habitat maybe affected
by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR
402. The Service is not required to concur with "no effect" determinations from Federal action
agencies. If consultation is required, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed
species, proposed critical habitat, and at -risk species be addressed within the consultation. More
information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of
permit or licensed applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook"
at the following web link: https://www.fws.gov/media/endangered-species-consultation-
handhnnk.
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Act, there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project -
related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds,
including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12
and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). More information about MBTA and BGEPA can be found at the
following web link: https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds.
We appreciate your consideration of Federally listed species. The Service encourages Federal
agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species in their project planning
to further the purposes of the Act. Please contact our staff at 828-258-3939, if you have any
questions. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference the
Consultation Code which can be found in the header of this letter.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
■ Migratory Birds
■ Wetlands

08/02/2023
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]

08/02/2023
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0112319
Project Name: Stallings Property
Project Type: Commercial Development
Project Description: 4.5 acre residential site which may be developed as part of an industrial
development.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/(a)35.18301475,-80.95282412526863,14z
7-:7
f
4
Counties: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

08/02/2023 3
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Endangered
Species profile: httpss://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME
STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata
Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/sl2ecies/3473

08/02/2023
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

08/02/2023
USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS
AND FISH HATCHERIES
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

08/02/2023
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this
list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location,
nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact
locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project
area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species
on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing
the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to
additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your
migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be
found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
BREEDING
NAME SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention Jul 31
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
Black -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Breeds May 15
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Oct 10
and Alaska.
htWs:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399

08/02/2023
BREEDING
NAME SEASON
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Breeds Mar 15
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 25
and Alaska.
Eastern Whip -poor -will Antrostomus voci ferns Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 20
and Alaska.
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeds Apr 20
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 20
and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Jul 31
and Alaska.
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA Jul 31
and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 10
and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions elsewhere
(BCRs) in the continental USA
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 31
and Alaska.
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

08/02/2023 3
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN11 FEB MAR APR I IM1AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT* NOV DECyy
Bald Eagle I�++ +■�� ���I+++ ++�� ���� + ++++ +f �+ +T
Non -BCC
Vulnerable
Black -billed ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ }+++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++
Cuckoo ■

08/02/2023 4
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Chimney Swift 111--- — — — — -- F
BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++'Ft11 MIF 11� „+111 "++ ++++ ++++
(CON)
wall ern Whip -Poor- ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +1++ +++ ++++ +++T TTT+ ++++ ++++
BCC Rangewide ■MM �ii� �rmm MMM
(CON)
Kentucky Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prairie Warbler 1IT7
BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++ +��� ++++ IIjk+L
+++(CON)
Pr
othonotary
Warbler ++++ +TT+ T+T+ ]III
"' +�++ +1+T +TT+ ++++ ++++
BCC Rangewide
(CON) ++
Red-headed loop Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird 001+ ++N J 1111 +0++ ++++ ++++ +T++ +T++ ++++ TTT+ +N'+ ++$$
BCC -BCR
Wood Thrush ++++ I I I I i� �� 1��' 1� + +
BCC Rangewide +TT+ T+TTT + ++ T ++T +TT+ ++ + ++++
(CON) �� ���� —.Mr
Additional information can be found using the following links:
■ Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
■ Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library-/
collections/avoidinp--and-minimizinu-incidental-take-migratorv-birds
■ Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
MIGRATORY BIRDS FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits

08/02/2023
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCQ and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information
Locator (RAIL)Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look
at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each
bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated
with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

08/02/2023
2. 'BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Lorin.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,

08/02/2023
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

08/02/2023
WETLANDS
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
THERE ARE NO WETLANDS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

08/02/2023
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:
Hart and Hickman
Name:
Julia McGuire
Address:
2923 S. Tryon Street
Address Line 2:
Suite 100
City:
Charlotte
State:
NC
Zip:
28203
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
8598012141

Roy Cooper, Governor
0■ ■■IF NC DEPARTMENT OF
■ !
■■k�■A NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■■
August 2, 2023
Julia McGuire
Hart & Hickman, PC
2923 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
RE: Stallings Property; FOU-014
Dear Julia McGuire:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-22869
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Di rectory_/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler(a)ncdcr.clov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
1:1 W. JONES STREET, RALEIGI 4_ NC 27fiO3 - 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALCIGH. NC 27699
OFC 915707.9120 • FA 919.707.4121

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Stallings Property
Project No. FOU-014
August 2, 2023
NCNHDE-22869
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on August 2, 2023; source: NCNHP, Spring (April) 2023.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Stallings Property
Project No. FOU-014
August 2, 2023
NCNHDE-22869
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group 0 Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
I Date Rank ML
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi? 5-Very --- Threatened G3 S2
Low
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name
Owner
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Berewick Park
Mecklenburg County
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg County
Greenway
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement
NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Owner Type
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on August 2, 2023; source: NCNHP, Spring (April) 2023.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

August 2, 2023
Managed Area (MAREA)
Q Buffered Project Boundary
Q Project Boundary
NCNHDE-22869: Stallings Property
Sources: Esn, Airbus OS, USG5, NGA NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS,
NLS, 05. NMA, Geodafa5lyrelsen, Rgks—I—L-I. GSA n-o -d. FEKIA,
Inlermap and the GIs usv C mr6unuty
Saurc Esn, HERE. Garmin, FAO, NOAA, VSGS, 0 OpenStrtMMap
o iributors. and Ibe GIs Vser Cnmmumty
Page 4 of 4

Appendix E
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
14
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2022-00526 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Charlotte West
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Foundry Commercial — Michael Cain
c/o Danielle Clark — Hart & Hickman, PC
Address: 3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Suite 301
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone Number: 518.598.2862
E-mail: dclarkAharthickman.com
Size (acres) 74 Nearest Town Charlotte
Nearest Waterway Coffey Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050103 Coordinates Latitude: 35.184463
Longitude:-80.953906
Location description: The review area consists of an approximate 74 acre parcel off Steel Creek Road in the City of Charlotte in
Mecklenburg Countv. North Carolina ( PINs 1412111. 14104123. 14121102. 14121103. 14121120. 14122104. 14122103.
14122101, 14122102, and portions of 14122126, 14121101B).
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly

SAW-2022-00526
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact M. Scott Jones at 828.271.7980, ext. 4222 or
scott.i ones(&usace. army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 04/11/2022.
D. Remarks: N/A
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
PHILIP.A. SHANNIN(a),USACE.ARMY.MIL
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: � ,{-�
Date of JD: 04/11/2022 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2022-00526
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/f?p=l 36:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Hart & Hickman, PC
Matt Bramblett, PE
Address: 2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone Number: 704.586.0007
E-mail: mbramblettAharthickman.com
Property Owner: City of Charlotte — Aviation Department
Kevin Hennessey
Address: 600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: TELEPHONE
E-mail: E-MAIL

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
in -
Applicant: Foundry Commercial — Michael Cain, c/o
File Number: SAW-2022-00526
Date: 04/11/2022
Danielle Clark — Hart & Hickman, PC
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usacc.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ulatoiyPro2ramandPennits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
Attn: M. Scott Jones
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
Asheville Regulatory Office
CESAD-PDS-O
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: PHILIP.A.SHANNINkUSACE.ARMY.MIL
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunit to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: M. Scott Jones, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 04/11/2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Foundry Commercial — Michael Cain, c/o
Danielle Clark — Hart & Hickman, PC, 3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Suite 301, Raleigh, NC 27607
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Steele Creek Road Tract,
SAW-2022-00526
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area consists of an
approximate 74 acre parcel off Steel Creek Road in the City of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina (PINs 1412111, 14104123, 14121102, 14121103, 14121120, 14122104, 14122103, 14122101,
14122102, and portions of 14122126, 1412110113).
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.184463 Longitude:-80.953906
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Coffey Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 04/04/2022
® Field Determination. Date(s): 04/07/2022
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Site Number
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated
Type of aquatic
Geographic
(decimal
(decimal
amount of
resources (i.e.,
authority to which
degrees)
degrees)
aquatic
wetland vs. non-
the aquatic resource
resources in
wetland waters)
"may be" subject
review area
(i.e., Section 404 or
(acreage and
Section 10/404)
linear feet, if
applicable
SCA-INT
35.185842
-80.952883
101 If
Non -Wetland Waters
Section 404
SCA-PER
35.185507
-80.951428
1479 If
Non -Wetland Waters
Section 404
SCB-INT
35.183624
-80.949256
124 If
Non -Wetland Waters
Section 404
WAA
35.184251
-80.950317
0.023 ac.
Wetland
Section 404
WAB
35.183329
-80.949789
0.609 ac.
Wetland
Section 404
WAC
35.185726
-80.952061
0.040 ac.
Wetland
Section 404

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general
permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit
applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit
authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before
accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being
required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an
individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other
general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and
thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including
whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6)
accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking
any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD
constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction
in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or
a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit
denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an
administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether
geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an
official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that
there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S.
on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could
be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items are included in the administrative
record and are appropriately cited:
N Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Hart & Hickman PJD package submitted 02/24/2022
N Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Datasheets:
N Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑Corps navigable waters' study:
❑U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑USGS NHD data:
❑USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps:
N U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Figure 1 —Charlotte West 2021, 1:24000
❑Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure A3 — Web Soil Survey ver. 3.1
N National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Figure A2
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
N FEMA/FIRM maps: Figure A5
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
N Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
or N Other (Name & Date): Site Photos, FOU-009, 10/18/2021
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑Other information (please specify): Figure A4 — published soil survey, 01/09/2022
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps
and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
/t/ - 540t �
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
04/ 11 /2022
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established
time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.

Appendix F
Mitigation Acceptance Letter
hart 1 hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MARC RECKTENWALD
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
May 31, 2023
Michael Cain
Foundry Commercial
2151 Hawkins Street, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
Project: Steele Creek Commercial Development
Expiration of Acceptance: 12/1/2023
County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Impact Location
8-di it HUC
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Catawba
03050103
Riparian Wetland
0.49
*DMS proposes to utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement.
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact [e-mail].
Sincerely,
FOR Jam es.btanT111
Deputy Director
cc: Dan McCauley, agent
North Carolina Department of Environmental Qpaltry I Division of Mitigation Services
EQ
4�i-.nani iw, 217 West Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I RaIetgh. North Carolina 27699-1652
117,
919.707.8976

Appendix G
NC WAM Forms
hart 1 hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR #:
Project Name Steele Creek - FOU.009 Date of Evaluation 11-6-22
Applicant/Owner Name Foundry Commercial Wetland Site Name WAB
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization JKM - H&H
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Unnamed tributary of Coffey Creek
River Basin Catawba River USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040103
County Mecklenburg NCDWR Region Mooresville
Yes (i No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude deci-de rees 35.183126,-80.950176
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ( Yes Q No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? fi Yes C No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
r Anadromous fish
r Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
r Publicly owned property
r N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
r Designated NCNHP reference community
r Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
C Blackwater
(i Brownwater
r Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) C Lunar (' Wind f Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? f Yes fi No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? (' Yes Q No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? f Yes Q No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
(i A fi A Not severely altered
(' B (' B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch 5 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
(' A (' A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
(i B Ci B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
(' C (- C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. C A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
(- C fi C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(i D (- D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. (' A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
C' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
(i C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.

4a. f A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
f E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (- A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon > 1 inch
4c. to A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
(i A (i A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
C B C' B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
f C f C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
r A r A r A >- 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B F B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F C r C F C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
r D r D F D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
r E r E F E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F F F F z 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G r G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
(i Yes (' No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
0- A >- 50 feet
C B From 30 to < 50 feet
C C From 15 to < 30 feet
( D From 5 to < 15 feet
{' E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
Q <- 15-feet wide C > 15-feet wide C Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C Yes {+ No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(i Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C Exposed - adjacent open water with width >- 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
C' A f A > 100 feet
C' B f B From 80 to < 100 feet
C' C f C From 50 to < 80 feet
Ci D f' D From 40 to < 50 feet
C' E fi E From 30 to < 40 feet
C' F f F From 15 to < 30 feet
C' G f G From 5 to < 15 feet
C' H f H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
t: A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
(' B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C' C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
(' A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
(a B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
(-' C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric

Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See
the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if
applicable)
( A
(' A
( A
z 500 acres
f B
f— B
C-
From 100 to < 500 acres
f C
C C
i' C
From 50 to < 100 acres
f D
C D
f D
From 25 to < 50 acres
f E
C' E
f E
From 10 to < 25 acres
C-
f— F
C-
From 5 to < 10 acres
C G
fi G
C' G
From 1 to < 5 acres
f+' H
C-
f: H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
f I
C I
I
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
f J
f— J
f J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
i' K
C' K
i' K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
f A Pocosin is the full extent (z 90%) of its natural landscape size.
f B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
( A C— A z 500 acres
f B Ci B From 100 to < 500 acres
C f C From 50 to < 100 acres
f D C D From 10 to < 50 acres
f E C E < 10 acres
f F f— F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
( Yes (' No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
f A 0
f B 1 to 4
f+C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
f A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
f B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
fi C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
( A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
f B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
( C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Q Yes f' No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
( A z 25% coverage of vegetation
f B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the
assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
o(
A
C: A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m
fi B
C B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
( C
f C
Canopy sparse or absent
o
(` A
( A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
( B
Q B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
t C
(' C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
( A
C A
Dense shrub layer
L f B
C' B
Moderate density shrub layer
0 C
R C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ( A
C A
Dense herb layer
f B
Q B
Moderate density herb layer
2
f•' C
C—
Herb layer sparse or absent

18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
f - A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
r;. B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
f - A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
4 B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
f - C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
f A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
4 B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B 1; -- C r D
N
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
i - A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
i. B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
f_ C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
' - D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAB
Date
11-6-22
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
JKM - H&H
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: NCDWR #:
Project Name Steele Creek - FOU.009 Date of Evaluation 11-6-22
Applicant/Owner Name Foundry Commercial Wetland Site Name WAC
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization JKM - H&H
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Unnamed tributary of Coffey Creek
River Basin Catawba River USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040103
County Mecklenburg NCDWR Region Mooresville
Yes Ci No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude deci-de rees 35.70106,-80.40432
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ( Yes Q No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? fi Yes C No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
r Anadromous fish
r Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
r Publicly owned property
r N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
r Designated NCNHP reference community
r Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
C Blackwater
(i Brownwater
r Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) C Lunar (' Wind f Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? f Yes fi No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? (' Yes Q No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? f Yes Q No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
Ci A (-- A Not severely altered
C' B (i B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch 5 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
Ci A Q A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
(' B (' B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C' C C' C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. C A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
(- C f C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
Ci D Q D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. (' A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
C' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
(i C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.

4a. f A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
f E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (- A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. to A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
(i A (i A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
C B C' B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
f C f C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
r A r A r A >- 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B F B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F C r C F C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
r D r D F D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
r E r E F E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F F F F z 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G r G F G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
G Yes (' No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
C A > 50 feet
Q- B From 30 to < 50 feet
C C From 15 to < 30 feet
( D From 5 to < 15 feet
{' E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
Q <- 15-feet wide C > 15-feet wide C Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Q- Yes C No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Q Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
C' A f A >_ 100 feet
C' B f B From 80 to < 100 feet
C' C f C From 50 to < 80 feet
C' D f' D From 40 to < 50 feet
0 E Q E From 30 to < 40 feet
C' F f F From 15 to < 30 feet
C' G f G From 5 to < 15 feet
C' H f H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C' A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
(i B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C' C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
(' A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
(i B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
(-' C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric

Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See
the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if
applicable)
f' A
(- A
( A
z 500 acres
f B
f- B
C-
From 100 to < 500 acres
f C
C C
i' C
From 50 to < 100 acres
f D
C D
f D
From 25 to < 50 acres
f E
C' E
f E
From 10 to < 25 acres
C-
C F
C-
From 5 to < 10 acres
C G
f G
C G
From 1 to < 5 acres
f H
(a H
f H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
1
(0-1
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
f J
f- J
f J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
(' K
f K
i' K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
f A Pocosin is the full extent (z 90%) of its natural landscape size.
f B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
f' A C A z 500 acres
f B C' B From 100 to < 500 acres
i' C R C From 50 to < 100 acres
f+ D C D From 10 to < 50 acres
f E C E < 10 acres
( F f- F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C Yes (` No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
f A 0
fi B 1 to 4
fC 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
f A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
ii B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
f A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
f B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
f C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Q Yes f' No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
f' A z 25% coverage of vegetation
f B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the
assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
o(-
A
(- A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m
fi B
Ci B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
fC
f C
Canopy sparse or absent
o
(` A
fA
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B
C- B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
6 C
f: C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
f' A
f A
Dense shrub layer
L f B
C' B
Moderate density shrub layer
0 C
R C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 f' A
C A
Dense herb layer
2 f' B
C- B
Moderate density herb layer
f: C
f: C
Herb layer sparse or absent

18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
f - A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
f. B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
f - A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
4 B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
f - C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
f A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
4 B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B 1; -- C r D
N
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
fi A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
f' B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
f__ C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
' - D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAC
Date
11-6-22
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
JKM - H&H
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

Appendix H
DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Email
14
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Dan McCauley
From: 401 PreFile <401 [e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 3:56 PM
To: Danielle Clark
Subject: Automatic reply: [External] Steele Creek Road Development - 401 Pre -Filing Meeting Request
This email confirms receipt of your pre -filing meeting request. Please retain this email for your records and
submit this documentation as part of your 401 application (PCN Application) as required by federal law. DWR
will not be able to accept your application without this federally required documentation. 401 applications
received without documentation that a pre -filing meeting request was submitted at least 30 days prior will be
returned as incomplete.
Responses to this email are not monitored.
Background
On April 6, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued an order staying a lower court's vacatur of the
Trump Administration's 2020 "Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule" ("Federal Rule"). As a result of
the United States Supreme Court order, the Trump Administration's Federal Rule has sprung back into effect.
The Trump Administration's Federal Rule imposes additional procedural requirements on applicants for 401
Certifications and on DWR's processing of those applications. One requirement is that 401 applicants must
request a pre -filing meeting request at least 30 days prior to submitting their 401 application. [40 C.F.R.
§121.4] In turn, the Federal Rule requires that applicants include documentation of their pre -filing meeting
request in their 401 Certification application. [40 C.F.R §121.1; 40 C.F.R. §121.51. Please refer to the Federal
Rule for more information.
Per 40 CFR §121 and §121.5, a 401 Certification application that does not include the required pre -filing
meeting request documentation does not constitute a "certification request." As a result of the reinstatement
of the Trump Administration's Federal Rule, all 401 applications received after April 6, 2022 that do not have
documentation that a pre -filing meeting request was submitted at least 30 days prior to submittal of a 401
Certification application will be returned as incomplete.
If you need to contact 401/Buffer Permitting Staff, please use the following link(s) to access of staff contact
list(s).
For Non -Transportation Central Staff:
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/401-buffer-permitting/401-
buffer-permitting-contacts
For Non -Transportation Regional
Staff: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2162034&cr=1
For all Transportation Projects Including NCDOT Projects:
https://deg.nc.gov/a bout/divisions/water-resou rces/water-resources-permits/transportation-
perm itti ng/staff-contacts